Toby Dickenson wrote:
> >I just hit the help button:
> >http://x/HelpSys?help_url=/Control_Panel/Products/OFSP/Help/Database-Manage
> >ment_Database.stx
>  
>  I dont see anything wrong with the 2.6 version????

Hmmm, I'm actually using the Alpha here, did you fix it up after that?

>  A malicious script? yes.  I think this is a bogus argument for a change to 
>  ZODB; a malicious script could also bring the server down by creating large 
>  numbers of non-persistent objects

Not malicious, consider this:

for brain in context.some_catalog(an_index='fish'):
   object = brain.getObject()
   object.doSomeMaintenence()

...now if an_index goes walkies, you've just loaded all the obejcts you've 
cataloged into memory by mistake.

>  A well-intentioned script? you just need to call the garbage collecter 
>  intermittantly (plus use subtransactions if you are modifying large numbers 
>  of objects) and everything will be happy.

Can you do either of those from Script (Python)'s?

>  The problem is not the hardness of the limit, but rather that the limit is 
>  applied at the right time. Any automatic enforcement mid-transaction is 
>  liable to cause problems (for example, think about _v_ attributes)

how would raising a MemoryError (as happens when you run of RAM for real) affect 
these?

>  If it is using Zope's 'File' object then the 500k block-o-bytes will have been 
>  split into 7 64k chunks, and each chunk stored in a ZODB object.

Oh, cool, didn't know that :-)

>  I can suggest a change to your indexing loop that will make this happen 
>  automatically. Would that help? ; -)

What would the change be?

cheers,

Chris


_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@[...].org
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev