> That sounds like a horrible idea. The GIL should never be held during an
> I/O operation.
For a greenfield design, I agree that it would be perverse. But I thought we
were talking about affordances for transitions from code that was written
without consideration of multiple interpreters. In
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, 12:12 pm Eric Snow,
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:58 AM Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > This PEP definitely makes per-interpreter GIL sound possible :)
>
>
> >
> > “Main interpreter” should be defined.
>
> +1
>
> > (Or maybe the term should be
> > avoided instead -- always h
That sounds like a horrible idea. The GIL should never be held during an
I/O operation.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 19:00 Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> > Is ``allow_all_extensions`` the best name for the context manager?
>
> Nope. I'm pretty sure that "parallel processing via multiple simultaneous
> inter
> Is ``allow_all_extensions`` the best name for the context manager?
Nope. I'm pretty sure that "parallel processing via multiple simultaneous
interpreters" won't be the only reason people ever want to exclude certain
extensions.
It might be easier to express that through package or module nam
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Carl Meyer wrote:
> > Note that Instagram isn't exactly using Cinder.
>
> This sounds like a misunderstanding somewhere. Instagram server is
> "exactly using Cinder" :)
:)
Thanks for clarifying, Carl.
> > I'll have to check if Cinder uses the pre-fork model.
>
>
Hi Eric, just one note:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 7:13 PM Eric Snow wrote:
> > Maybe say “e.g. with Instagram's Cinder” – both the household name and
> > the project you can link to?
>
> +1
>
> Note that Instagram isn't exactly using Cinder.
This sounds like a misunderstanding somewhere. Instagram
Thanks for the feedback, Petr! Responses inline below.
-eric
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:58 AM Petr Viktorin wrote:
> This PEP definitely makes per-interpreter GIL sound possible :)
Oh good. :)
> > PEP: 684
> > Title: A Per-Interpreter GIL
> > Author: Eric Snow
> > Discussions-To: python-dev@p
On 09. 03. 22 4:38, Eric Snow wrote:
I'd really appreciate feedback on this new PEP about making the GIL
per-interpreter.
Yay! Thank you!
This PEP definitely makes per-interpreter GIL sound possible :)
The PEP targets 3.11, but we'll see if that is too close. I don't
mind waiting one more
r
Oops, I hit Send by mistake! Please disregard the previous message (I
often draft questions I later find answered, so I delete them.)
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:53 PM Petr Viktorin wrote:
>
> On 09. 03. 22 4:38, Eric Snow wrote:
> > I'd really appreciate feedback on this new PEP about making the GI
On 09. 03. 22 4:38, Eric Snow wrote:
I'd really appreciate feedback on this new PEP about making the GIL
per-interpreter.
Yay! Thank you!
The PEP targets 3.11, but we'll see if that is too close. I don't
mind waiting one more
release, though I'd prefer 3.11 (obviously). Regardless, I have
10 matches
Mail list logo
