Raymond Hettinger added the comment: > Expected: items stay in the queue until a consumer consumes it
That would be my expectation as well. Davin, do you know why the example in the docs uses queue.Queue() instead of multiprocessing.Queue()? Would there be a difference? Also, I'm curious about the best practice for message queues when a consumer is killed. Even if the message getting is atomic and never loses a message, what do people normally do to resurrect a task that was already underway when the consumer is killed? I presume there is no easy way to find-out whether the task had just started, was in-process and changed the state of the system, or mostly finished. Is there some sort of coding pattern for begin_transaction, commit, and rollback? ISTM, that killing consumers is a perilous business. The only reliable pattern I can think of is for the consumer to send back messages through another queue to indicate that a task was received and underway, and to indicate that a task was completed. ---------- assignee: -> davin nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29454> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
