"Martijn Tonies" <m.tonies@...> 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 :-)

Correct. There are no new versions created when you modify the same record
again and again in the same transaction as you're still the record owner.
However, the second update is always much slower than others, as the engine
replaces a delta with a full record version, so multiple updates are not
good from the performance POV. But there's no other issues with this
approach (and there's no limit on number of record versions anyway).


Dmitry