Re: Sample LDIF for pg_service.conf no longer works
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sample LDIF for pg_service.conf no longer works |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEwZK9u01CW3-zT_DzzLB_ZzxOwSi+7Q3KoG96uAtFLLxA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Sample LDIF for pg_service.conf no longer works (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > When using pg_service.conf with LDAP, we document[1] the following sample LDIF > for populating the LDAP server: > > version:1 > dn:cn=mydatabase,dc=mycompany,dc=com > changetype:add > objectclass:top > objectclass:groupOfUniqueNames > cn:mydatabase > uniqueMember:host=dbserver.mycompany.com > uniqueMember:port=5439 > uniqueMember:dbname=mydb > uniqueMember:user=mydb_user > uniqueMember:sslmode=require > > That presumably worked at one point, but OpenLDAP 2.4.23 and OpenLDAP 2.4.39 > both reject it cryptically: > > ldap_add: Invalid syntax (21) > additional info: uniqueMember: value #0 invalid per syntax > > uniqueMember is specified to bear a distinguished name. While OpenLDAP does > not verify that uniqueMember values correspond to known DNs, it does verify > that the value syntactically could be a DN. To give examples, "o=foobar" is > always accepted, but "xyz=foobar" is always rejected: "xyz" is not an LDAP DN > attribute type. Amid the LDAP core schema, "device" is the best-fitting > objectClass having the generality required. Let's convert to that, as > attached. I have verified that this works end-to-end. +1. I've run into that problem as wel,l just not had time to prepare a proper example in the core schema :) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: