George Woodring <george.woodring@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have always thought the way to avoid deadlocks was to update rows in the > same order by the different updaters. Is there a better chain of thought > for updating and deleting rows at the same time? Do we need to put a lock > on the table to update, then have the delete queue up waiting for the lock > to be removed? With the amount of detail you've provided (viz: none), it's impossible for anyone to guess what your problem actually is, let alone speculate on suitable solutions. regards, tom lane
