Fix memory leak when skipRebuild is true #540
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… leak when skipRebuild is true
|
Notably, I took the approach of fixing this only for the case where |
|
Heyo, just let me know if anything is needed on my part to get an approval here. Happy to help. |
aviadsteps
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2024
floydspace
approved these changes
Oct 29, 2024
|
looks safe to merge, sorry for ignoring it for so long time |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.54.5 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR addresses #388
It is inspired by #388 (comment)
I run several different services locally in parallel with serverless-offline and serverless-esbuild. The largest one of those was chewing up 30+ GB of RAM just to build and run locally, and it didn't come down after the build was done. We kept having to bump our GitHub Actions to larger runners in order to be able to run our integration tests chiefly because of this memory leak.
We have been using this fork for a month; The memory usage is far less and there are no apparent issues. By using the fork, we've cut our GitHub Action spend in half.