On Jun 18, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Arun Kumar PG wrote:
> thanks for the instant reply guys! > > as my app is on production so i cannot afford to bring things down > right away for 0.4/0.5 migration. eventually, i will be going to (in > next month) use 0.4/0.5. so for the time being (at least for the > next one month) i am looking for the best solution on 0.3.x so that > users are not affected. > > michael, as you mentioned about explicit cleaning of session, i am > doing that currently. let me quickly mention the flow of request so > that you guys can have more information: > > - search request comes > - if orm mapping is not created it's get created now (only happens > one time) > - new session is created and attached to the current thread (this is > done so that different DAOs can access the same session from the > current thread) > - all orm queries are fired.. results processed > - finally, current thread is accessed again, session attached > earlier is accessed, session.clear() invoked and del session done. > > what's the best way to deal with the problem now... so, after session.clear() memory stays up...correct ? in that case you need to poke around to see if you've held onto your objects somewhere else. Poking around in gc.get_objects() is not a bad last resort, either. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
