[issue21594] asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises OSError

STINNER Victor added the comment: "I agree that blocking is not ideal, however there are already some other methods that can eventually block forever, and for such cases a timeout is provided." Functions like read() can "block" during several minutes, but it's something expect from network fu

[issue21594] asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises OSError

Guido van Rossum added the comment: I'm not sure. Running out of file descriptors is really not something a library can handle on its own -- this needs to be kicked back to the app to handle. E.g. by pacing itself, or closing some connections, or changing the system limit... The library really ca

[issue21594] asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises OSError

Changes by STINNER Victor : -- nosy: +giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, pitrou, yselivanov ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mai

[issue21594] asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises OSError

Sebastian Kreft added the comment: I agree that blocking is not ideal, however there are already some other methods that can eventually block forever, and for such cases a timeout is provided. A similar approach could be used here. I think this method should retry until it can actually access

[issue21594] asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises OSError

STINNER Victor added the comment: "I don't know if that is expected, but IMO I think it would be better to just block until the required numbers of fds are available." Does it mean that it can block forever? It sounds strange to try to make such error silent. Why not retrying in case of such

[issue21594] asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises OSError

New submission from Sebastian Kreft: In some cases asyncio.create_subprocess_exec raises an OSError because there are no file descriptors available. I don't know if that is expected, but IMO I think it would be better to just block until the required numbers of fds are available. Otherwise one