➜

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.

Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, DLitz, aliles, amaury.forgeotdarc, asvetlov, christian.heimes, emptysquare, georg.brandl, grahamd, gregory.p.smith, ionelmc, jcea, lemburg, neologix, pitrou, rpcope1, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, socketpair, twouters, vstinner, xupeng, yselivanov
Date 2017-05-28.11:24:09
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1495970649.67.0.706369107708.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
> Can multiprocessing.util.register_after_fork() be rewritten with using the new API? It wouldn't benefit much from it, and there might be timing issue given the comments in BaseProcess._bootstrap(): old_process = _current_process _current_process = self try: util._finalizer_registry.clear() util._run_after_forkers() finally: # delay finalization of the old process object until after # _run_after_forkers() is executed del old_process
History
Date User Action Args
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, lemburg, twouters, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jcea, amaury.forgeotdarc, vstinner, christian.heimes, grahamd, Arfrever, ionelmc, asvetlov, neologix, socketpair, sbt, aliles, serhiy.storchaka, yselivanov, DLitz, emptysquare, xupeng, rpcope1
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitrousetmessageid: <1495970649.67.0.706369107708.issue16500@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitroulinkissue16500 messages
2017-05-28 11:24:09pitroucreate