[Zope-dev] Re: [ZODB-Dev] Re: BTrees strangeness (was Zope 2.X BIG Session problems - blocker - our site dies - need help of experience Zope developer, please)

[Chris McDonough]

I have turned this in to a collector issue.

On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 13:32, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Casey Duncan wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:00:16 +0200
> > Dieter Maurer <dieter at handshake.de> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Chris McDonough wrote at 2004-5-15 13:04 -0400:
> >>
> >>>...
> >>>Dieter, do you think you can read this patch and give a thumbs up or
> >>>down on it?
> >>
> >>The patch looks good.
> >>
> >>
> >>>On a different subject, the publisher probably shouldn't pass around
> >>>traceback objects (e.g. when it calls into err_hook) as Tres believes
> >>>that may be a memory leak waiting to happen.
> >>
> >>The traceback is vital for error analysis.
> >>
> >>It may not be necessary that ZPublisher touches the traceback
> >>but we will definitely need access to it during error handling.
> 
> Because the traceback contains stack frames, passing it through another 
> stack frame (via a function call) is inherently tricky:  the called 
> function must *not* raise another exception.
> 
> > Perhaps the traceback can be passed as a string to avoid leaks?
> > Furthermore why can't the traceback be retrieved later from
> > sys.exc_info()?
> 
> +1;  I don't want untrusted code handling tracebacks anyway.
> 
> Tres.