At 02:26 PM 13/01/2006 +0100, you wrote:

> > 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 :-)

As an analogy, if the cigarette is yours, it's yours, which should make it
OK for you to throw the lighted butt out of the car window when you want to
light another one. :-/
./heLen