You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I haven't investigated the behavior on fork, but as several futures created by this library are backed by threads and as threads aren't copied over a fork, it seems likely that an application using more-executors and fork() could end up with a bunch of futures which hang when accessed.
It would be nice if this could be improved. It can't be made to "work", but it could possibly be made to fail in a predictable way.
For example, can we make it so that after a fork, any future which depended on a disappeared thread is automatically failed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I haven't investigated the behavior on fork, but as several futures created by this library are backed by threads and as threads aren't copied over a fork, it seems likely that an application using more-executors and fork() could end up with a bunch of futures which hang when accessed.
It would be nice if this could be improved. It can't be made to "work", but it could possibly be made to fail in a predictable way.
For example, can we make it so that after a fork, any future which depended on a disappeared thread is automatically failed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: