On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Darryl Dixon - Winterhouse Consulting wrote:

>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Marius Gedminas <mar...@gedmin.as> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:26:10AM +0100, Kaweh Kazemi wrote:
>>>> Thanks a lot for the investigation, Marius. That was awesome.
>>>> Seems to me, I need to upgrade to Python 2.7 and be done with the
>>>> problem then. :/
>>> I wonder, though, if ZODB ought to use the 'noload' method of
>>> cPickle.Unpickler, which is undocumented and broken on 2.6 (and gone on
>>> 3.x, AFAIU).
>> noload exists for ZODB.
>> We ZC (DC at the time) wrote cPickle because ZODB needed a
>> highly-optimized
>> pickler.  There are a number of decisions we made specifically with
>> ZODB in mind.
>> I don't think the Python 3 version of cPickle reflects these
>> priorities.  I strongly suspect
>> we'll end up having our own cPickle in the long run.
> It would be wonderful if ZODB settled on an internal version of cPickle
> that didn't use recursion so we could Pickler.dump() OFS.File objects
> bigger than 32mb :-)

Shouldn't we just update OFS.File to use blob storage?

David Glick
 Web Developer

Engagement technology for social and environmental change.


For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to