Author vstinner
Recipients Connor.Wolf, Giovanni.Bajo, bobbyi, dan.oreilly, emptysquare, forest_atq, gregory.p.smith, ionelmc, jcea, lesha, neologix, nirai, nirs, pitrou, sbt, sdaoden, tshepang, vinay.sajip, vstinner
Date 2016-07-09.08:02:14
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAMpsgwaN21G7XJdGSw5BuL94uujHXy+3_W-f3_hC6p_FbdcaJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1468039484.83.0.243817345714.issue6721@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
I suggest to close the issue as WONT FIX. Python code base is huge and
Python depends on a lot of external code. We cannot warranty anything.

It might be possible to track all kinds of locks with an infinite time. But
I'm not sure that it's worth it.

It is possible to use fork() with threads. The problem is more to execute
non trivial code after the fork. In short, the POSIX advices to only call
exec() syscall after fork and nothing else. The list of functions which are
safe after fork() is very short.

You can still use the multiprocessing module using the fork server for
example.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-07-09 08:02:15vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, gregory.p.smith, vinay.sajip, jcea, nirs, pitrou, nirai, forest_atq, ionelmc, bobbyi, neologix, Giovanni.Bajo, sdaoden, tshepang, sbt, lesha, emptysquare, dan.oreilly, Connor.Wolf
2016-07-09 08:02:15vstinnerlinkissue6721 messages
2016-07-09 08:02:14vstinnercreate