On Jun 15, 6:59 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
So no, calling gc.collect() is not necessary under normal circumstances, it
is only needed here to for the purposes of the method of testing.
Ok, thanks. I've done some more digging and find that there *are* some
references
On Jun 14, 11:19 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
the new SessionTransaction that occurs in close() does not request any
connection resources, and is discarded immediately along with the session
that is the subject of remove(). I don't see how it could be affected by
any
err, no, your test is incorrect. You are maintaining a reference to the
SessionTransaction in tolist.
Change the middle of the loop to read:
assert len(tolist) == 1
del tolist
so that you are not artificially holding onto the SessionTransaction, and
additionally:
for s in sessions:
On Jun 15, 4:30 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
err, no, your test is incorrect. You are maintaining a reference to the
SessionTransaction in tolist.
Whoops, you're right. However, should I really have to do a
gc.collect() after the session.remove() calls? Without it, I
On Jun 15, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
On Jun 15, 4:30 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
err, no, your test is incorrect. You are maintaining a reference to the
SessionTransaction in tolist.
Whoops, you're right. However, should I really have to do a
On Jun 14, 3:14 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
On Jun 14, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
There's really no way to tell what's happening in your app without an example
that illustrates the issue, such that if unusual behavior were observed, one
could issue a pdb and
On Jun 14, 3:14 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
My advice would be, assuming you cannot isolate the issue inside a small test
case, to trap the application at the point at which it appears to be opening
a mystery SessionTransaction, dropping into pdb, and checking around
On Jun 14, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
On Jun 14, 3:14 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
My advice would be, assuming you cannot isolate the issue inside a small
test case, to trap the application at the point at which it appears to be
opening a mystery
