>>Assuming that you are certain that this is the code in question, then I would conclude the following:
>>1) the record being obtained *IS* locked by some other process
>>2) That process is holding the record for a long time (permanently?)
>>
>>It is hard to say, but it is possible that the message is actually coming from the REPLACE command - if the record is long-term locked by something, then the RLOCK will be tried a total of 20 times and then you will do the REPLACE anyhow.
>
>Any suggestion on making this code more robust?

Yup. Put the SECONDS clause there. :)

Vlad