On Jan 13, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2008-1-11 18:20 -0500:
...
BTW, in situations in which you don't know which objects to
deactivate, an alternative is to call cacheGC on the connection
frequently. This is fairly inexpensive and incremental.
But, it can kill volatile variables as well -- which may
lead to trouble, until we have implemented something like
"Garanteed lifetime for volatile variables".
I've got no problem with the current behavior of volatiles, I
understand how they work. But personally I've not been able to
successfully write walk code against very large databases that doesn't
consume RAM without bound using only cacheGC. If I write the same
type of code using _p_deactivate against each object I walk, I can
keep memory under some sort of control.
- C
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
