Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)

[Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>]

On 2/12/2014 4:08 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 11 19:06, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 02/11/2014 05:06 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2014 16:25, David Stacey wrote:
>>>> getpwent() is called in three different places.
>>>
>>> To those of you who have investigated these code paths: do any of them
>>> look like they couldn't be replaced by getpwnam() or other calls that
>>> would let cygwin1.dll do single-record AD/SAM lookups, rather than
>>> whole-table/tree scans?
>>>
>>> That is, do any of these programs really need to visit every record in
>>> /etc/passwd?
>>
>> libreadline wants to know how to tab-complete ~foo; to do that, it has
>> to find all usernames beginning with foo.  How would you do that without
>> visiting every single record?
>
> This seems to be the major usage of getpwent these days.  The question
> is, how bad is it if only a handful entries, or even only a single one
> (of oneself) show up?
>
> 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.

What about the following compromise:  If /etc/passwd exists, then 
getpwent behaves as it does currently.  Otherwise, it returns a handful 
of entries, or possibly just the current user.  This gives users a 
choice.  If tab-completion in this situation is important to them, they 
can keep their /etc/passwd file.

Ken

--
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