➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author serhiy.storchaka
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 2017-05-29.16:35:55
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1496075756.13.0.367602344883.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
The one of potential advantages of the API proposed by Gregory is that os.register_at_fork() can be made atomic. Either register all callbacks, or do nothing in the case of error. But current proposed implementation is not atomic. If resizing of some list is failed due to MemoryError (or may be KeyboardInterrupt), some callbacks can already be registered.

Is it worth to guarantee the atomicity of os.register_at_fork().
History
Date User Action Args
2017-05-29 16:35:56serhiy.storchakasetrecipients: + serhiy.storchaka, lemburg, twouters, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jcea, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, grahamd, Arfrever, ionelmc, asvetlov, neologix, socketpair, sbt, aliles, yselivanov, DLitz, emptysquare, xupeng, rpcope1
2017-05-29 16:35:56serhiy.storchakasetmessageid: <1496075756.13.0.367602344883.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-05-29 16:35:56serhiy.storchakalinkissue16500 messages
2017-05-29 16:35:55serhiy.storchakacreate