On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:16:06 +0100 Remy NOEL <mocra...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:18 PM Kyle Stanley <aeros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We're currently looking into adjusting the current Executor implementation > > (for both TPE and PPE) to not use daemon threads at all for subinterpreter > > compatibility, see https://bugs.python.org/issue39812. Instead of using > > an atexit handler, there's some consideration for using a similar > > threading-specific "exit handler". Instead of being upon program exit, > > registered functions would be called just before all of the non-daemon > > threads are joined in `threading._shutdown()`. > > > > As a result, I suspect that we are unlikely to implement something like > > the above. But, as a convenient side effect, it should somewhat address the > > current potentially surprising behavior. > > > > There might still be some fun involved given that current implementation > *might* lazy-spawn threads upon submit. > This means that if a ThreadExecutor is called from both daemon and > non-daemon threads (which is a very bad idea though), the kind of spawned > threads might be unpredictable.
Daemon threads are already a bad idea, actually. It is really worth the effort to ensure your threads exit cleanly rather than expect the interpreter to kill them at shutdown. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/CUY3K4UYD45NAFECRKGP2KU6EMXJHNY3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
