Thread Safety in Python's dictionary

Solution 1:

Python's built-in structures are thread-safe for single operations, but it can sometimes be hard to see where a statement really becomes multiple operations.

Your code should be safe. Keep in mind: a lock here will add almost no overhead, and will give you peace of mind.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201108091210/http://effbot.org/pyfaq/what-kinds-of-global-value-mutation-are-thread-safe.htm has more details.

Solution 2:

Yes, built-in types are inherently thread-safe: http://docs.python.org/glossary.html#term-global-interpreter-lock

This simplifies the CPython implementation by making the object model (including critical built-in types such as dict) implicitly safe against concurrent access.

Solution 3:

Google's style guide advises against relying on dict atomicity

This is explained in further detail at: Is Python variable assignment atomic?

Do not rely on the atomicity of built-in types.

While Python’s built-in data types such as dictionaries appear to have atomic operations, there are corner cases where they aren’t atomic (e.g. if __hash__ or __eq__ are implemented as Python methods) and their atomicity should not be relied upon. Neither should you rely on atomic variable assignment (since this in turn depends on dictionaries).

Use the Queue module's Queue data type as the preferred way to communicate data between threads. Otherwise, use the threading module and its locking primitives. Learn about the proper use of condition variables so you can use threading.Condition instead of using lower-level locks.

And I agree with this one: there is already the GIL in CPython, so the performance hit of using a Lock will be negligible. Much more costly will be the hours spent bug hunting in a complex codebase when those CPython implementation details change one day.