Author Henrique Andrade
Recipients Henrique Andrade, davin, pablogsal, pitrou
Date 2018-03-18.17:04:52
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
I don't want to "close the pipes but maintain the queue alive" - I want to
terminate the queue and make sure that no resources are leaked. It's that

When one closes a file or a socket, there is no underlying OS resource
being held. That's what I would like to have here too.

Apparently the design does not support that and, if that's the case, it's
fine, it's just that it goes against most of the norm afaict.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Pablo Galindo Salgado <> wrote:

> Pablo Galindo Salgado <> added the comment:
> Notice that the documentation for close says:
> > Indicate that no more data will be put on this queue by the current
> process. The background thread will quit once it has flushed all buffered
> data to the pipe. This is called automatically when the queue is garbage
> collected.
> The method does not promise to close any pipe, just "Indicate that no more
> data will be put on this queue by the current process". Closing prematurely
> the writer side could lead to issues. I still do not understand why you
> would want to close the pipes but maintain the queue alive.
> I could be missing something, so let's see if other people think
> differently about this.
> ----------
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <>
> <>
> _______________________________________


Henrique Andrade | +1-530-426-2123 | |
Date User Action Args
2018-03-18 17:04:53Henrique Andradesetrecipients: + Henrique Andrade, pitrou, davin, pablogsal
2018-03-18 17:04:53Henrique Andradelinkissue33081 messages
2018-03-18 17:04:52Henrique Andradecreate