Assuming a Read Committed Snapshot transaction isolation setting, is the following statement "atomic" in the sense that you won't ever "lose" a concurrent increment?

update mytable set counter = counter + 1

I would assume that in the general case, where this update statement is part of a larger transaction, that it wouldn't be. For example, I think this scenario is possible:

• update the counter within transaction #1
• do some other stuff in transaction #1
• update the counter with transaction #2
• commit transaction #2
• commit transaction #1

In this situation, wouldn't the counter end up only being incremented by 1? Does it make a difference if that is the only statement in a transaction?

How does a site like stackoverflow handle this for its question view counter? Or is the possibility of "losing" some increments just considered acceptable?