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 steve.newcomb
Recipients damian.barabonkov, davin, keven425, pablogsal, pitrou, steve.newcomb, turicas, vinay0410
Date 2021-04-04.16:06:28
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1617552388.36.0.209351649072.issue38119@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
Sometimes a leak is exactly what's wanted, i.e. a standing block of shared memory that allows sharing processes come and go ad libitum.  I mention this because I haven't seen anyone mention it explicitly.  

While turicas's monkeypatch covers the use case in which a manually-named block of shared memory is intended to remain indefinitely, it would be best if future versions of shared_memory allowed for such a use case, too.  It shouldn't be necessary to monkeypatch in order to have a standing block of shared memory remain ready and waiting even when nobody's using it.
History
Date User Action Args
2021-04-04 16:06:28steve.newcombsetrecipients: + steve.newcomb, pitrou, turicas, davin, pablogsal, vinay0410, damian.barabonkov, keven425
2021-04-04 16:06:28steve.newcombsetmessageid: <1617552388.36.0.209351649072.issue38119@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-04-04 16:06:28steve.newcomblinkissue38119 messages
2021-04-04 16:06:28steve.newcombcreate