On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 15:42 +0100, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > We had many issues with the retro changelog plugin. The main reason > is > that the retro CL is a separate backend and if there is more than > one > regular backend it is easy to run into deadlocks, eg a change in > backend > A triggers and ADD in theh RCL, in the add a plugin might want to > access > backend B, but there was a change in backend B and it waits for the > RCL > lock and both threads are blocked. > All the scenrios so far could be resolved, by scoping the plugins to > ignore changes in the retro CL, but it is tedious and in my opinion > operations on the retro changelog should not be seen by plugins at > all. > I propose a simple configuration an processing change to allow to > ignore > plugins for specific backends, please have a look at: > > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/exclude-backends-from-plugin > -operations.html > Can we keep the configuration names consistent? I would rather the flag be: nsslapd-allow-plugin-operations: true/false The flag is clearer about the function, and doesn't have the whole "well it says no, so should it be true which actually means false ..." -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Brisbane
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 389-devel mailing list 389-devel@%(host_name)s http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
