News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Exactly-Once Initialization in Asynchronous Python. Parent comment

Re:Exactly-Once Initialization in Asynchronous Python by dilatedmind on Saturday August 01, 2020 @10:07AM (#24020519)
His asyncpg example doesn't make much sense to me. What if there was a config change with a bad password? I would like to know this immediately on startup, else my rolling deploy is going to bring down all the previously well configured instances, and by the time we lazily try to connect to postgres it's too late.

I'm not a big python user, but I do find it kind of surprising there isn't an awaitable and thread safe mutex in the stdlib.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Exactly-Once Initialization in Asynchronous Python by dtech on Saturday August 01, 2020 @10:59AM (#24020918)
Python is highly opinionated towards single-threadeding, and the infamous GIL makes "true" multi-threading hard. Async and multi-threading has only recently gotten some love at all in the language and stdlib.

I'd say single-threading is the right call for 99% of Python's use-cases and users. C extensions are available and widely used for core functionality that needs to be fast and/or parallel, e.g. large parts of numpy are in the c extension.

[ Parent | on HN ]