This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author amikoren@yahoo.com
Recipients amikoren@yahoo.com, gps, r.david.murray, sbt
Date 2015-12-10.08:14:41
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1449735282.15.0.638801908618.issue25829@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Thanks David. using spawn -  multiprocessing.get_context('spawn').Pool(... - does the job . It does has it's flows - fork allows me to share data between workers (especially large readonly memory database, which I don't want to duplicate for each worker), which spawn (which uses fork-exec python script) doesn't. So I'll have to see about that.

I still don't understand why forking has to be done under the worker thread context. It doesn't seem like a good design - When forking from a thread you can never be sure what is being forked. A better approach seems to be to fork missing workers on-demand, synchronous to the main thread. But I probably lack the historic context of the multiprocess module.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-12-10 08:14:42amikoren@yahoo.comsetrecipients: + amikoren@yahoo.com, gps, r.david.murray, sbt
2015-12-10 08:14:42amikoren@yahoo.comsetmessageid: <1449735282.15.0.638801908618.issue25829@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-12-10 08:14:42amikoren@yahoo.comlinkissue25829 messages
2015-12-10 08:14:41amikoren@yahoo.comcreate