Re^2: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth?

I thought it does get returned eventually, nowadays? Might only happen when at midnight during high tide, but I seem to remember hearing the never-gets-released rule is no longer true.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^2: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^2: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth? by perrin (Chancellor) on Nov 22, 2003 at 18:56 UTC
Memory that is actually freed (which you can do by setting a variable to undef) gets returned to Perl for other uses and in some cases on some systems gets returned to the OS. If you don't explicitly undef, it stay allocated to the variable that used it.	[reply]
Re^4: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 22, 2003 at 21:42 UTC
Does just letting it go out of scope count the same as explicit undef? Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^4: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth? by perrin (Chancellor) on Nov 22, 2003 at 22:53 UTC
No, you have to set it to undef.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re^4: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth? by agrundma (Novice) on Dec 02, 2003 at 22:16 UTC
Re: Re: Re: Re^4: Does using globals via our() in mod_perl scripts lead to apache child size growth? by perrin (Chancellor) on Dec 03, 2003 at 07:30 UTC