Author grahamd
Recipients chn, eric.snow, grahamd, loewis, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, terry.reedy
Date 2012-01-18.09:49:14
SpamBayes Score 1.96074e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1326880155.54.0.953824884852.issue6531@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
What are the intentions with respect to atexit and sub interpreters?

The original report was only about ensuring that the main interpreter doesn't crash if an atexit function was registered in a sub interpreter. So, was not expecting a change to sub interpreters in submitting this report, in as much as atexit callbacks for sub interpreters are never invoked in Python 2.X.

That said, for mod_wsgi I have extended sub interpreter destruction so that atexit callbacks registered in sub interpreters are called. For mod_wsgi though, sub interpreters are only destroyed on process shutdown. For the general case, a sub interpreter could be destroyed at any time during the life of the process. If one called atexit callbacks on such sub interpreter destruction, it notionally changes the meaning of atexit, which is in process exit and not really sub interpreter exit.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-01-18 09:49:15grahamdsetrecipients: + grahamd, loewis, terry.reedy, pitrou, r.david.murray, python-dev, eric.snow, chn
2012-01-18 09:49:15grahamdsetmessageid: <1326880155.54.0.953824884852.issue6531@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-01-18 09:49:14grahamdlinkissue6531 messages
2012-01-18 09:49:14grahamdcreate