Message364351
I've run into the same problem. It appears that the SharedMemory class is assuming that all clients of a segment are child processes from a single parent, and that they inherit the same resource_tracker. If you run separate, unrelated processes, you get a separate resource_tracker for each process. Then, when a process does a close() followed by a sys.exit(), the resource tracker detects a leak and unlinks the segment.
In my application, segment names are stored on the local filesystem and a specific process is responsible for unlinking the segment when it is shut down. I was able to get this model to work with the current SharedMemory implementation by having processes which are just doing a close() also call resource_tracker.unregister() directly to prevent their local resource trackers from destroying the segment.
I imagine the documentation needs some discussion of the assumed process model and either: 1) a statement that you need to inherit the resource tracker from a parent process, 2) a blessed way to call the resource tracker to manually unregister, or 3) a way to disable the resource tracker when creating the SharedMemory object. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-03-16 18:48:32 | jfischer | set | recipients:
+ jfischer, pitrou, davin, dxflores |
2020-03-16 18:48:32 | jfischer | set | messageid: <1584384512.24.0.166705106384.issue39959@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-03-16 18:48:32 | jfischer | link | issue39959 messages |
2020-03-16 18:48:32 | jfischer | create | |
|