[New-bugs-announce] [issue4448] should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?
Gregory P. Smith
report at bugs.python.org
Thu Nov 27 21:57:11 CET 2008
New submission from Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org>:
>From Kristján Valur Jónsson (kristjan at ccpgames.com) on python-dev:
I came across this in socket.c:
# _rbufsize is the suggested recv buffer size. It is *strictly*
# obeyed within readline() for recv calls. If it is larger than
# default_bufsize it will be used for recv calls within read().
What I worry about is the readline() case. Is there a reason why we
want to strictly obey it for that function? Note that in the
documentation for _fileobject.read() it says:
# Use max, disallow tiny reads in a loop as they are very
The same argument surely applies for readline().
The reason I am fretting about this is that httplib.py (and therefore
xmlrpclib.py) specify bufsize=0 when createing their socket fileobjects,
presumably to make sure that write() operations are not buffered but
flushed immediately. But this has the side effect of setting the
_rbufsize to 1, and so readline() calls become very slow.
I suggest that readline() be made to use at least defaultbufsize, like
read(). Any thoughts?
title: should socket readline() use default_bufsize instead of _rbufsize?
versions: Python 2.6
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
More information about the New-bugs-announce