Charles-Francois Natali <neolo...@free.fr> added the comment: > IMO, it would be nice if I could ask my queue, "Just what is your capacity (in bytes, not entries) anyways? I want to know how much I can put in here without worrying about whether the remote side is dequeueing." I guess I'd settle for explicit documentation that the bound exists.
It is documented. See the comment about the "underlying pipe". > But how should I expect my code to be portable? Are there platforms which provide less than 64k? Less than 1k? Less than 256 bytes? It depends :-) If the implementation is using pipes, under Linux before 2.6.9 (I think), a pipe was limited by the size of a page, i.e. 4K on x86. Now, it's 64K. If it's a Unix socket (via socketpair), the maximum size can be set through sysctl, etc. So you can't basically state a limit, and IMHO, you should't be concerned with that if you want your code to be portable. I find the warning excplicit enough, be that's maybe because I'm familiar with this low-level details. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8426> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
