Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.python > #74658 > unrolled thread

Re: Blocked thread

Started byLarry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com>
First post2014-07-17 14:03 -0400
Last post2014-07-17 14:03 -0400
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Blocked thread Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2014-07-17 14:03 -0400

#74658 — Re: Blocked thread

FromLarry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com>
Date2014-07-17 14:03 -0400
SubjectRe: Blocked thread
Message-ID<mailman.11940.1405620209.18130.python-list@python.org>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can have as many connections to the db server as I want, that's not
>> the issue. The issue is that my main thread seems to be blocked in the
>> join(), so I guess I'm going to need a separate script. I was trying
>> to avoid that.
>
> Right, but what you're trying to do is monitor the local thread, by
> spinning off a thread to do the deletion and then keeping an eye on it
> by attempting a timed join. I'm saying it'd probably be easier to do
> the monitoring on the server end, via a second connection. (It most
> likely doesn't need special database privileges, even; at least in
> PostgreSQL, any user can see pg_stat_activity entries for the same
> user.) That's usually going to be more reliable, plus the server can
> tell you whether the deletion is blocked waiting for a lock or busy
> writing to the disk or something else.

Yes, I agree, but the second connection will have to be in a second
script, not the main thread of the script I have.

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python


csiph-web