Message110129
termination.patch, in the result handler you've added:
while cache and thread._state != TERMINATE and not failed
why are you terminating the second pass after finding a failed process?
Unpickleable errors and other errors occurring in the worker body are not exceptional cases, at least not now that the pool is supervised by _handle_workers. I think the result should be set also in this case, so the user can inspect the exception after the fact.
I have some other suggestions too, so I will review this patch tomorrow.
For shutdown.patch, I thought this only happened in the worker handler, but you've enabled this for the result handler too? I don't care about the worker handler, but with the result handler I'm worried that I don't know what ignoring these exceptions actually means. For example, is there a possibility that we may lose results at shutdown? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-07-12 20:08:35 | asksol | set | recipients:
+ asksol, jnoller, gdb |
2010-07-12 20:08:34 | asksol | set | messageid: <1278965314.94.0.434866560237.issue9205@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-07-12 20:08:28 | asksol | link | issue9205 messages |
2010-07-12 20:08:28 | asksol | create | |
|