> In any multi-threaded application, you must be carefull when > accessing (and especially modifying) shared (e.g. "global") objects. > In general, you will need locks to synchronize the access.
I agree to this general view. > Appending to a list (and some other elementary operations > on Python data structures) is protected by Python's "GIL" > (= "Global Interpreter Lock") and thereby becomes "atomic". > Thus, if all you do is appending - then the append has no need > of explicite locking. Thanks for such information. > It does not protect the integrity of your data structures. It can be that the data protection needs to be extended occasionally. But I am more interested in the detail that a specific Python list variable should reflect the received record sets from a single test command in a consistent way. Did all extra worker threads exit after the statement “server.shutdown()” was successfully executed? > Thus, if your threads modify shared objects, then you are responsible > to protect access to them with appropriate locking. How do you think about to improve the distinction for the really desired lock granularity in my use case? Regards, Markus -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
