> And this is the condition that gave rise to the internal
> inconsistency. AFAIR, it indicates that more than a maximum number (256?)
> of updates are pending on the same record. It's never advisable to write
> code that performs multiple updates on a record during the same
> transaction: even 2 is one too many.

Could be me, but I find this silly.

During the same transaction, if the record is mine, it's mine :-)

> In any case, it's unlikely to cause
> corruption, since the cancellation of the operation will undo the

offending

> work.

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com