Author neologix
Recipients Brian.Cain, Ian.Davis, jnoller, neologix, terry.reedy
Date 2011-04-19.17:17:06
SpamBayes Score 1.63108e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1303233429.24.0.224654159341.issue8426@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> 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.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-04-19 17:17:09neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, terry.reedy, jnoller, Ian.Davis, Brian.Cain
2011-04-19 17:17:09neologixsetmessageid: <1303233429.24.0.224654159341.issue8426@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-04-19 17:17:06neologixlinkissue8426 messages
2011-04-19 17:17:06neologixcreate