spresse1 added the comment: >> So you're telling me that when I spawn a new child process, I have to >> deal with the entirety of my parent process's memory staying around >> forever? > > With a copy-on-write implementation of fork() this quite likely to use > less memory than starting a fresh process for the child process. And > it is certainly much faster.
Fair enough. >> I would have expected this to call to fork(), which gives the child >> plenty of chance to clean up, then call exec() which loads the new >> executable. > > There is an experimental branch (http://hg.python.org/sandbox/sbt) > which optionally behaves like that. Note that "clean up" means close > all fds not explcitly passed, and has nothing to do with garbage > collection. I appreciate the pointer, but I am writing code intended for distribution - using an experimental branch isn't useful. What I'm still trying to grasp is why Python explicitly leaves the parent processes info around in the child. It seems like there is no benefit (besides, perhaps, speed) and that this choice leads to non-intuitive behavior - like this. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18120> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
