On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:55:40PM -0700, Dan Price wrote:
> On Thu 11 Aug 2005 at 01:52PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
> > b) There's actually currently no limit on the amount of byte-range
> > locks you can hold.
>
> (Except that the problem we're discussing
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:28:08PM -0700, Dan Price wrote:
> On Thu 11 Aug 2005 at 11:56AM, Eric Saxe wrote:
> > > This might sound dumb, but are we sure that processes are the resource
> > > which is temporarily unavailable?
> >
> > I think what you are saying, Dan, is that "this might be so obvio
