Richard Oudkerk <shibt...@gmail.com> added the comment: > I think this issue can be closed, the worker handler is simply borked and > we could open up a new issue deciding how to fix it (merging billiard.Pool > or someting else).
OK. I am not sure which option under "Resolution" should be chosen. "Later"? > (btw, Richard, you're sbt? Yes. > I was trying to find your real name to give you credit for the no_execv > patch in billiard) The execv stuff certainly won't go in by Py3.3. There has not been consensus that adding it is a good idea. (I also have the unit tests passing with a "fork server": the server process is forked at the beginning of the program and then forked children of the server process are started on request. It is about 10 times faster then using execv, and almost as fast as simple forking.) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10037> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
