Message321459
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | asvetlov, gvanrossum, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2018-07-11.14:34:44 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1531319684.46.0.56676864532.issue34075@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> I think we'll only allow instances of c.f.ThreadPoolExecutor (and its subclasses) to be passed to set_default_executor. That's a more robust check than just guarding against ProcessPoolExecutor. I suggest to only reject ProcessPoolExecutor, instead of having a very specific test on ThreadPoolExecutor which might fail with funky but valid thread executor. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-07-11 14:34:44 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, gvanrossum, asvetlov, yselivanov |
| 2018-07-11 14:34:44 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1531319684.46.0.56676864532.issue34075@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-07-11 14:34:44 | vstinner | link | issue34075 messages |
| 2018-07-11 14:34:44 | vstinner | create | |