Yes. For the record, having this class:
class A:
def __init__(self): self.x=x
def __del__(self): pass
and doing this in an action
a=A()
would cause the same leak on ANY web framework running on CPython (not
on Jython).
Using __del__ in python is dangerous.
On Jan 10, 3:15 am, Michele Comitini <michele.comit...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> good article, esp. the "The trouble with Finalizers" part
>
> 2011/1/10 ron_m <ron.mco...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the sample code if one comments out the __del__ method in the class the
> > leak does not occur. That is not to say it can't happen I suppose in a more
> > complicated code example but I believe the __del__ is a required piece. This
> > test was performed without the gc.collect() being present. I ran System
> > Monitor on Ubuntu and watched the python process after each edit and
> > monitored memory size to verify. So the only way I got the leak was to have
> > the __del__method present on the class in the exec example and not have the
> > gc.collect() call.
>
> > I left the process running with the leak (__del__ present in class and
> > gc.collect() commented out) and it got to 3 GB of process space so the
> > collector never ran. The system was showing all the signs of a machine in
> > trouble from memory pressure, I have 4 GB of physical memory. The size
> > builds quite rapidly.
>
> > This is an old article published as the gc module was added to Python that
> > explains a bit about gc in Python.
>
> >http://arctrix.com/nas/python/gc/
>
> > Because it is old it may not be 100% accurate today but does go into the
> > problem some better than the reference documentation.
>
> > This article was decent as well
>
> >http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/programming/python-gotchas-1-__del__...
>
> > Ron
