Message217412
| Author | neologix |
|---|---|
| Recipients | ezio.melotti, nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, skip.montanaro, tiwilliam |
| Date | 2014-04-28.20:08:46 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAH_1eM3gHRMrLi2Z4u=J0W2Wjh3cptWY4huJWQNEFYRvTCp9kQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <CANc-5UynFsAaFWz94xUMvz6vvFvWTGR6gDsG8MaP58U9pwtPMA@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
That could make sense, dunno. Note that the bz2 module uses a harcoded 8K value. Note that the buffer size should probably be passed to the open() call. Also, the allocation is quite peculiar: it uses an exponential buffer size, starting at a tiny value: 202 # Starts small, scales exponentially 203 self.min_readsize = 100 In short, I think the overall buffering should be rewritten :-) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-04-28 20:08:46 | neologix | set | recipients: + neologix, skip.montanaro, pitrou, nadeem.vawda, ezio.melotti, serhiy.storchaka, tiwilliam |
| 2014-04-28 20:08:46 | neologix | link | issue20962 messages |
| 2014-04-28 20:08:46 | neologix | create | |