It is a bit of a puzzle to me.
On Jan 9, 3:34 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: > > > > > correct. > > Isn't the need to call gc.collect() explicitly a bit of a puzzle? Or is it > just speeding up something that would happen eventually? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 1:18 pm, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 9, 2011 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, ron_m wrote: > > >>> To get the leak the __del__method has to be in the class. The gc.collect() > >>> as suggested by Massimo cured the leak for the exec code case I believe > >>> because gc.collect() runs a test on the objects to see if there are any > >>> external references, finds none, and therefore allows them to be removed > >>> from the heap. > > >> Sorry if I'm being dense, but to be clear, the leak can happen with exec > >> even if the class does not have a __del__ method (i.e., web2py's case), and > >> that kind of leak can be prevented using gc.collect (the recent fix put > >> into > >> place). However, if the class has a __del__ method, you get a leak even if > >> exec is not being used, and that kind of leak is not resolved by > >> gc.collect. > >> Is that right?
