python 3.0 memory leaking?

[Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven]

Hi Rupert,

-On [20080210 20:16], rupert.thurner (rupert.thurner at gmail.com) wrote:
>the edgewall trac release 0.11 is blocked now since more than one
>month for a memory leak nobody is able to find, see
>http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev/browse_thread/thread/116e519da54f16b
>.

You are slightly mistaken that nobody is able to find anything. There is
currently a lot underway to fix this. The problem was not just one area, but
problems on a number of areas. Given the fact nobody uses a large enough
site with a 0.11 trunk installation these sort of things will start to show
during beta test, as it did. This is still beta period and I personally
would rather release a month later (even despite the already long release
time) than give our users a solution that eats away at their resources like
crazy. I am sure people will appreciate the latter more in the end. Already
the current fixes in trunk for Trac and Genshi stabilized a few large beta
deployment sites in terms of resource eating.

>does python-3.0 improve something to avoid writing memory leaking
>applications?

There are efforts underway to optimize the memory usage for 2.6 on a lot of
levels more than 2.5 already did. Check Python-dev of the last 2-3 weeks.
However, this is not interesting in the short term, since 2.4 and 2.5 (and
later on 2.6) will be versions that will be used for the coming 1-2 years
for sure. Avoidance is very difficult, especially given Python's dynamic
nature. But I'll let more knowledgeable minds talk about that.

For me, a relative newbie to Python, the entire memory allocation issue is
not transparent at all and information about it is scattered across the net.
One of the things I hope to contribute to in the coming year is to make sure
the entire area of Python memory use and proper coding is better understood.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/
What is to be, will be. And what isn't to be sometimes happens...