Message134082
> IMO, it would be nice if I could ask my queue, "Just what is your capacity
(in bytes, not entries) anyways? I want to know how much I can put in here
without worrying about whether the remote side is dequeueing." I guess I'd
settle for explicit documentation that the bound exists.
It is documented.
See the comment about the "underlying pipe".
> But how should I
expect my code to be portable? Are there platforms which provide less than
64k? Less than 1k? Less than 256 bytes?
It depends :-)
If the implementation is using pipes, under Linux before 2.6.9 (I think), a pipe was limited by the size of a page, i.e. 4K on x86.
Now, it's 64K.
If it's a Unix socket (via socketpair), the maximum size can be set through sysctl, etc.
So you can't basically state a limit, and IMHO, you should't be concerned with that if you want your code to be portable.
I find the warning excplicit enough, be that's maybe because I'm familiar with this low-level details. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-04-19 17:17:09 | neologix | set | recipients:
+ neologix, terry.reedy, jnoller, Ian.Davis, Brian.Cain |
2011-04-19 17:17:09 | neologix | set | messageid: <1303233429.24.0.224654159341.issue8426@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-04-19 17:17:06 | neologix | link | issue8426 messages |
2011-04-19 17:17:06 | neologix | create | |
|