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 merrellb
Recipients jnoller, merrellb
Date 2009-03-30.20:25:32
SpamBayes Score 2.5749335e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4a3ced360903301325l4d3a74b8yd85a35ce4b49226@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1238439312.26.0.535751716595.issue4660@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Hey Jesse,
It was good meeting you at Pycon.  I don't have anything handy at the moment
although, if memory serves, the most trivial of example seemed to illustrate
the problem.  Basically any situation where a joinable queue would keep
bumping up against being empty (ie retiring items faster than they are being
fed), and does enough work between get() and task_done() to be preempted
would eventually break.  FWIW I was running on a Windows box.

I am afraid I am away from my computer until late tonight but I can try to
cook something up then (I presume you are sprinting today?).  Also I think
the issue becomes clear when you think about what happens if
joinablequeue.task_done() gets preempted between its few lines.

-brian

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jesse Noller <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Jesse Noller <jnoller@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Hi Brian - do you have a chunk of code that exacerbates this? I'm having
> problems reproducing this, and need a test so I can prove out the fix.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4660>
> _______________________________________
>
Files
File name Uploaded
unnamed merrellb, 2009-03-30.20:25:31
History
Date User Action Args
2009-03-30 20:25:34merrellbsetrecipients: + merrellb, jnoller
2009-03-30 20:25:32merrellblinkissue4660 messages
2009-03-30 20:25:32merrellbcreate