[Backgroundrb-devel] repeat_every when a worker is not done yet...

Ezra Zygmuntowicz ezmobius at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 11:14:56 EDT 2006

On Aug 24, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Brett Walker wrote:

> If I use repeat_every for a worker, if the do_work function has not
> completed by the time the next interval rolls around, will a new
> thread be started, resulting in 2 threads for the same worker?
> Looking at start_process, it seems like the thread gets created (which
> spins off the thread and then continues to execute the start_process
> method, right?), then sets the @next_start.  So if the @next_start is
> in 10 minutes, but it takes 20 minutes to finish the current work,
> start_timer will attempt to call start_process on the job, and kick
> off another thread, resulting in 2 threads.
> Is this correct?  What I want to happen is that the thread can't get
> kicked off again until the current one has completed/returned.  Maybe
> the setting of @next_start needs to go in the thread block.  Or did I
> totally misunderstand the code?
> Cheers,
> Brett

Hey Brett-

	You know I think you are correct. It looks like if your worker lasts  
longer then the interval that you will end up with multiple worker  
threads. Hmm.. I personally haven't used the repeat_every stuff. I  
added unit tests for it when the patch was submitted but I don't  
think I considered the case you are talking about.

	I am in the middle of a wholesale refactoring of the codebase in  
order to add a thread pool and more precise timed workers. Hopefully  
sometime next week I will have a release. If you need this right away  
then I would happily accept a patch for more detailed cron style  


More information about the Backgroundrb-devel mailing list