Clarence Gardner <clarence@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I noticed the following in some of our code today: > select ... <join list> ... for update of a, b; > Inasmuch as the cardinal rule for avoiding deadlocks is to acquire > locks in a consistent order, should such a construction be avoided > in favor of two separate "select ... for update" statements so that > the order of acquisition of a and b is known? If you're worried about deadlock, what you should be worrying about is the order in which the individual rows are visited --- and splitting this into two SQL commands doesn't in itself guarantee more about that than the command as given. regards, tom lane
