>>1. Who said the lock isn't required?
>Well, you did. Sort of. If it is required but we won't receive an error if an attempt to get it fails, then I'd say it is *not* required.
>

No I didn't say that.
You will get an error if it "looks" like the record should be deleted, but it can't be locked to verify the fact.

>Is there another way to refresh record content without locking it?
>Why is this reasoning different from checking for "filter condition"?
>

There is another way to refresh the record, but, until it is locked, it can be changed by other client. So, once it is locked, it may be different again.

Filter condition is checked twice: before the record is locked and after the record is locked. Are you suggesting to do the same for the JOIN operation? Would you rather take a different performance hit because the JOIN loop will be executed twice? Do you have something else to suggest?

Thanks,
Aleksey.