Charles-François Natali <neolo...@free.fr> added the comment: > Anyway, since my view does not seem to resonate with core developers I I'll > give it a rest for now.
Well, the problem is that many views have been expressed in this thread, which doesn't help getting a clear picture of what's needed to make progress on this issue. AFAIC, I think the following seems reasonable: 1) add an atfork module which provides a generic and pthread_atfork-like mechanism to setup handlers that must be called after fork (right now several modules use their own ad-hoc mechanism) 2) for multiprocessing, call exec() after fork() (issue #8713) 3) for buffered file objects locks, use the approach similar to the patch I posted (reinit locks in the child process right after fork()) Does that sound reasonable? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6721> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
