pvary commented on code in PR #11073:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11073#discussion_r1762769631
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/util/ThreadPools.java:
##########
@@ -86,9 +86,18 @@ public static ExecutorService newWorkerPool(String
namePrefix) {
}
public static ExecutorService newWorkerPool(String namePrefix, int poolSize)
{
- return MoreExecutors.getExitingExecutorService(
- (ThreadPoolExecutor)
- Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize,
newDaemonThreadFactory(namePrefix)));
+ return newWorkerPool(namePrefix, poolSize, true);
+ }
+
+ public static ExecutorService newWorkerPool(
Review Comment:
Thanks @danielcweeks for the review!
@fengjiajie started a thread on the dev list about this topic:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/mowmbr36y8wr1k9don2xx36l97n5f1xz
Cleaning up the pool in non-static cases should be a responsibility of the
user. If they want a pool which is closed by a hook when the JVM exists they
should explicitly "say" so, for example calling `newExitingWorkerPool`.
This is a behaviour change in the API, so I think we need feedback from the
community before proceeding with it.
That said, we did not receive any answer for the thread. What do you think
we should do to move forward?
Thanks,
Peter
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
