Hi Set,

> ...and that we do not have 'concurrent transactions'. This latter
> claim may well be true, since I do not understand what concurrent
> transactions means. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Literally, concurrent means "running together" (from Latin),
i.e. "running at the same time", as opposed to sequential ("one after
the other").

So unless there's a very specific meaning of "concurrent transactions"
that I'm unaware of, I'd say we have them.


Greetings,
Paul Vinkenoog