Ah, implied assumptions strike again. I was thinking so DB that when I read "remove", I assumed that. Of course you're right, if you're not actually removing B

Ah, implied assumptions strike again. I was thinking so DB that when I read "remove", I assumed that. Of course you're right, if you're not actually removing B and C, there's no conflict. If you actually remove B and C in the transaction, ie "deallocating" them either by deleting rows or updating prev/next/data to null, you'll get the conflict I mentioned.