Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, DLitz, aliles, amaury.forgeotdarc, asvetlov, christian.heimes, emptysquare, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, ionelmc, jcea, lemburg, neologix, pitrou, rpcope1, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, socketpair, twouters, vstinner, xupeng, yselivanov
Date 2017-05-28.11:24:09
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1495970649.67.0.706369107708.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Can multiprocessing.util.register_after_fork() be rewritten with using the new API?

It wouldn't benefit much from it, and there might be timing issue given the comments in BaseProcess._bootstrap():

            old_process = _current_process
            _current_process = self
            try:
                util._finalizer_registry.clear()
                util._run_after_forkers()
            finally:
                # delay finalization of the old process object until after
                # _run_after_forkers() is executed
                del old_process
History
Date User Action Args
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, lemburg, twouters, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jcea, amaury.forgeotdarc, vstinner, christian.heimes, grahamd, Arfrever, ionelmc, asvetlov, neologix, socketpair, sbt, aliles, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov, DLitz, emptysquare, xupeng, rpcope1
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitrousetmessageid: <1495970649.67.0.706369107708.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitroulinkissue16500 messages
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitroucreate