[PATCH] Fix ldb_comparison_binary for blobs of differing lengths

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 07:44:41AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 09:42 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> 
> > 
> > What is the current sort algorithm when applied to binary
> > comparison ? Could any real applications (not the nbt tests
> > only) depend on this ?
> 
> Length before content.  Shorter length sorts first.
> 
> The issue is that if you put positive integers into LDB, and don't
> declare them as an INTEGER in @ATTRIBUTES then the < and > operators
> still 'just work'. 
> 
> I think real applications could innocently depend on it, as this is
> metze code in the WINS replication server that broke. 

(*) You just nailed the coffin shut there I'm afraid :-).

> I hate the idea of baking this behaviour in forever-more, but changing
> the output of a valid search against valid data seems equally un
> -desirable.

Yeah, but see (*) above :-(. If real apps depend on it we
have to keep it that way. You said you'd already got patches
that implement this, right ?