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 rauanargyn
Recipients davin, dxflores, fvdnabee, jfischer, pitrou, python-dev, rauanargyn
Date 2020-05-17.15:25:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Not sure about "it can always be accessed and closed/unlinked by any process later on", as each process will be spawning its own resource_tracker, using a separate pipe. Thus, unregister calls from other processes will not have any effect. 

The documentation is indeed unclear that processes must share the resource_tracker. Can we introduce a new flag - "persist", that would indicate no resource tracking is needed? Registering will only happen if create=True and persist=False, meaning the user accepts the creating process must outlive all other processes that could connect to the shared memory. If persist=False, the user accepts the responsibility for manual cleaning up of the allocated memory. This will allow catering to a wider range of use cases, where readers/writer processes can exit and re-connect to shared_memory as they see fit.
Date User Action Args
2020-05-17 15:25:54rauanargynsetrecipients: + rauanargyn, pitrou, python-dev, davin, dxflores, jfischer, fvdnabee
2020-05-17 15:25:54rauanargynsetmessageid: <>
2020-05-17 15:25:54rauanargynlinkissue39959 messages
2020-05-17 15:25:54rauanargyncreate