Adam Liddell <> added the comment:

Wrapping every resource allocating call like that is what we were trying to 
avoid, since it makes wait_for go from a simple one-line helper to something 
you have to be very careful with.

Conceptually, a user should expect that wait_for should behave the exact same 
as awaiting the underlying awaitable, just with auto-cancellation. The problem 
with the current wait_for is that there is a gap where the underlying task may 
have completed but a cancellation arrives. In this case, we need to raise the 
cancellation to be a good asyncio citizen, but the underlying task has no 
opportunity to act on the cancellation (to free the resource) since it is 
already complete and cannot be re-entered. So the resource returned by the 
completed task gets stuck in limbo, since we can't return it and we can't 
assume a generic 'close' behaviour.

See my comment in the PR for a suggestion about an alternative structure for 
wait_for, which may avoid this gap and hence prevent the leak (but I have not 
tested it!)


Python tracker <>
Python-bugs-list mailing list

Reply via email to