Is relying on __del__() for cleanup in Python unreliable?

Question

I was reading about different ways to clean up objects in Python, and I have stumbled upon these questions (1, 2) which basically say that cleaning up using __del__() is unreliable and the following code should be avoid:

def __init__(self):
    rc.open()

def __del__(self):
    rc.close()

The problem is, I'm using exactly this code, and I can't reproduce any of the issues cited in the questions above. As far as my knowledge goes, I can't go for the alternative with with statement, since I provide a Python module for a closed-source software (testIDEA, anyone?) This software will create instances of particular classes and dispose of them, these instances have to be ready to provide services in between. The only alternative to __del__() that I see is to manually call open() and close() as needed, which I assume will be quite bug-prone.

I understand that when I'll close the interpreter, there's no guarantee that my objects will be destroyed correctly (and it doesn't bother me much, heck, even Python authors decided it was OK). Apart from that, am I playing with fire by using __del__() for cleanup?

Answer 1

You observe the typical issue with finalizers in garbage collected languages. Java has it, C# has it, and they all provide a scope based cleanup method like the Python with keyword to deal with it.

The main issue is, that the garbage collector is responsible for cleaning up and destroying objects. In C++ an object gets destroyed when it goes out of scope, so you can use RAII and have well defined semantics. In Python the object goes out of scope and lives on as long as the GC likes. Depending on your Python implementation this may be different. CPython with its refcounting based GC is rather benign (so you rarely see issues), while PyPy, IronPython and Jython might keep an object alive for a very long time.

For example:

def bad_code(filename):
    return open(filename, 'r').read()

for i in xrange(10000):
    bad_code('some_file.txt')

bad_code leaks a file handle. In CPython it doesn't matter. The refcount drops to zero and it is deleted right away. In PyPy or IronPython you might get IOErrors or similar issues, as you exhaust all available file descriptors (up to ulimit on Unix or 509 handles on Windows).

Scope based cleanup with a context manager and with is preferable if you need to guarantee cleanup. You know exactly when your objects will be finalized. But sometimes you cannot enforce this kind of scoped cleanup easily. Thats when you might use __del__, atexit or similar constructs to do a best effort at cleaning up. It is not reliable but better than nothing.

You can either burden your users with explicit cleanup or enforcing explicit scopes or you can take the gamble with __del__ and see some oddities now and then (especially interpreter shutdown).

Answer 2

There are a few problems with using __del__ to run code.

For one, it only works if you're actively keeping track of references, and even then, there's no guarantee that it will be run immediately unless you're manually kicking off garbage collections throughout your code. I don't know about you, but automatic garbage collection has pretty much spoiled me in terms of accurately keeping track of references. And even if you are super diligent in your code, you're also relying on other users that use your code being just as diligent when it comes to reference counts.

Two, there are lots of instances where __del__ is never going to run. Was there an exception while objects were being initialized and created? Did the interpreter exit? Is there a circular reference somewhere? Yep, lots that could go wrong here and very few ways to cleanly and consistently deal with it.

Three, even if it does run, it won't raise exceptions, so you can't handle exceptions from them like you can with other code. It's also nearly impossible to guarantee that the __del__ methods from various objects will run in any particular order. So the most common use case for destructors - cleaning up and deleting a bunch of objects - is kind of pointless and unlikely to go as planned.

If you actually want code to run, there are much better mechanisms -- context managers, signals/slots, events, etc.