Message 256711 - Python tracker

➜

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.

In-reply-to
Author	jacksontj
Recipients	jacksontj
Date	2015年12月18日.21:45:31
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1450475131.81.0.326416858752.issue25908@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
Some more investigation, it seems that the alternate `Queue` fix is a non-starter. From my investigation it seems that the ProcessPoolExecutor is assuming that multiprocess.Queue is gauranteed delivery, and it isn't (because of the pickling). So the issue is that the worker process drops the message if its interrupted while unpickling and the Pool class has no idea-- and assumes that the job is still running. With that being said it seems like my attached patch is probably the most reasonable fix without a major rework of how the ProcessPoolExecutor works.

Content

Some more investigation, it seems that the alternate `Queue` fix is a non-starter. From my investigation it seems that the ProcessPoolExecutor is assuming that multiprocess.Queue is gauranteed delivery, and it isn't (because of the pickling). So the issue is that the worker process drops the message if its interrupted while unpickling and the Pool class has no idea-- and assumes that the job is still running. With that being said it seems like my attached patch is probably the most reasonable fix without a major rework of how the ProcessPoolExecutor works.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2015年12月18日 21:45:31	jacksontj	set	recipients: + jacksontj
2015年12月18日 21:45:31	jacksontj	set	messageid: <1450475131.81.0.326416858752.issue25908@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015年12月18日 21:45:31	jacksontj	link	issue25908 messages
2015年12月18日 21:45:31	jacksontj	create

homepage