X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=YIpCS4XIIDBXeyra
	p/q3uakLVl41zkQBqNQglO1aoNFwnjsDEHs7vxHAaomZtdD/z2WsFhMJesxxuNbv
	mAdAfN7dV8zcyrLMZzh2wRsUWCkTZMFpuSXB5IdzOB8hw6/BU1NBpqBR/52pCni7
	/+IA2NA0gMGCHVOLWERyEeGa/ZE=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=cHEizp2002DNfxFIxzgNFz
	WAFIo=; b=ekMjRzS889sGUlf43LxOVUd8x7PsWiBhbqxv9rRQGRJ1h+y99HPiQ1
	Hu9hHG8+ZEGP4IHTM/tlY+6ZMiwrfFr7j9MAVWE0gzScw+pWG6azQhD6nCn3ekQt
	cGoUlLOqQlknWfYjlzqr6sYJ2FaqJ9WXDo2ae4RAkqzJdZnN75lnk=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	smtpback.ht-systems.ru
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:51:29 +0400
From:	Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To:	Andrey Repin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID:	<1514151193.20140212155129@mtu-net.ru>
To:	Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
In-Reply-To:	<20140212090804.GM2821@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F7AEC5 DOT 5090205 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <8B7B5FE0-7413-4358-BA8A-E0B6E0B17653 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F8B50E DOT 7040307 AT lysator DOT liu DOT se> <52F92D58 DOT 9030408 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52F95D1D DOT 4050108 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <4510121021 DOT 20140211062515 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <52FAB14C DOT 8060800 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <52FABAF5 DOT 2060701 AT etr-usa DOT com> <52FAD730 DOT 9090507 AT redhat DOT com> <20140212090804 DOT GM2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!

> Either way, implementing a full getpwent requires to return the local
> users, the users of the primary domain, and the users of all trusted
> domains.  I know of domains with 200K users and there are probably
> bigger ones.  How long should a search take when a user presses <TAB>
> after the ~?  And then, shall the process running the getpwent actually
> cache all of them?  This seems really excessive.

IMO, such practice should be actually discouraged. I mean, listing ALL users
of ALL... well, you got it. For the reasons you mentioned above - the possible
results of such operation are largely unpredictable.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru) 12.02.2014, <15:49>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -