mirror of
https://github.com/python/cpython.git
synced 2025-10-04 22:20:46 +00:00
Merged revisions 78141-78142 via svnmerge from
svn+ssh://pythondev@svn.python.org/python/trunk ........ r78141 | r.david.murray | 2010-02-10 20:38:42 -0500 (Wed, 10 Feb 2010) | 6 lines Issue 5754: tweak shelve doc wording to make it clearer that even when writeback=True values are written to the backing store when assigned to the shelf. Add test to confirm that this happens. Doc patch and added test by Robert Lehmann. I also fixed the cross references to the sync and close methods. ........ r78142 | r.david.murray | 2010-02-10 20:56:42 -0500 (Wed, 10 Feb 2010) | 3 lines Improve issue 7835 fix per MAL to handle the case that the module dictionary has also been cleared. ........
This commit is contained in:
parent
2070be82cd
commit
b92a305d2a
4 changed files with 26 additions and 12 deletions
|
|
@ -30,14 +30,15 @@ lots of shared sub-objects. The keys are ordinary strings.
|
|||
|
||||
Because of Python semantics, a shelf cannot know when a mutable
|
||||
persistent-dictionary entry is modified. By default modified objects are
|
||||
written only when assigned to the shelf (see :ref:`shelve-example`). If the
|
||||
optional *writeback* parameter is set to *True*, all entries accessed are
|
||||
cached in memory, and written back on :meth:`sync` and :meth:`close`; this
|
||||
can make it handier to mutate mutable entries in the persistent dictionary,
|
||||
but, if many entries are accessed, it can consume vast amounts of memory for
|
||||
the cache, and it can make the close operation very slow since all accessed
|
||||
entries are written back (there is no way to determine which accessed entries
|
||||
are mutable, nor which ones were actually mutated).
|
||||
written *only* when assigned to the shelf (see :ref:`shelve-example`). If the
|
||||
optional *writeback* parameter is set to *True*, all entries accessed are also
|
||||
cached in memory, and written back on :meth:`~Shelf.sync` and
|
||||
:meth:`~Shelf.close`; this can make it handier to mutate mutable entries in
|
||||
the persistent dictionary, but, if many entries are accessed, it can consume
|
||||
vast amounts of memory for the cache, and it can make the close operation
|
||||
very slow since all accessed entries are written back (there is no way to
|
||||
determine which accessed entries are mutable, nor which ones were actually
|
||||
mutated).
|
||||
|
||||
.. note::
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue