> On 7 Feb 2020, at 05:27, Frank Millman <fr...@chagford.com> wrote:
>
> @Barry
> I agree that __del__() is rarely useful, but I have not come up with an
> alternative to achieve what I want to do. My app is a long-running server,
> and creates many objects on-the-fly depending on user input. They should be
> short-lived, and be removed when they go out of scope, but I can concerned
> that I may leave a dangling reference somewhere that keeps one of them alive,
> resulting in a memory leak over time. Creating a _del__() method and
> displaying a message to say 'I am being deleted' has proved effective, and
> has in fact highlighted a few cases where there was a real problem.
>
> My solution to this particular issue is to explicitly delete the global
> instance at program end, so I do not rely on the interpreter to clean it up.
> It works.
I have faced the same problem with leaking of objects.
What I did was use the python gc to find all the objects.
First I call gc.collect() to clean up all the objects what can be deleted.
Then I call gc.get_objects() to get a list of all the objects the gc is
tracking.
I process that list into a collections.Counter() with counts of each type of
object
that I call a snapshot.
By creating the snapshots at interesting times in the services life I can diff
the
snapshots and see how the object usage changes over time.
The software I work on has an admin HTTP interface used internally that I use
to request
snapshots white the service is running.
Barry
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
