Skip to content

fix: Better memory usage for tracing #431

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 15, 2019
Merged

Conversation

untitaker
Copy link
Member

Fix #430

@reupen could you try this one out? I assume it will fix your problem but maybe your issue with 0.10 is something entirely else

@untitaker untitaker requested a review from mitsuhiko July 13, 2019 16:02
@untitaker untitaker requested review from kamilogorek and HazAT July 13, 2019 16:06
@untitaker
Copy link
Member Author

Adding @HazAT and @kamilogorek just so they've seen the memory issues with long-running transactions once...

@reupen
Copy link

reupen commented Jul 13, 2019

@untitaker I tried the same trace as in #430 and Sentry is not in the top 20 (or 50 for that matter). So, yes, it does fix the problem described in #430.

@untitaker
Copy link
Member Author

Trimming has been removed again because we do not know what to do with trimmed data. Instead the only change here is that un-sampled transactions don't build a list of spans.

@untitaker untitaker merged commit 520158d into master Jul 15, 2019
@untitaker untitaker deleted the fix/tracing-memory-usage branch July 15, 2019 15:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Accumulating memory usage with 0.10.x
3 participants