> > > 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 :-)

Forgive me, but I thought the number above applied to metadata changes and not
to updates on the same record. I wasn't aware that there was such a low limit...
if there was any limit at all...
But then again maybe I have missed something somewhere.
Althoug I would need to go and do some checking to make sure.

Paul