On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Each cascaded delete ought to be removing a disjoint set of rows in the > referencing table, so I'm not quite sure why order should matter. > > regards, tom lane > 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? Thanks, George
