Dear Members! I have to ask something that not clear for me from description, and I can't simulate it.
Is "select for update" atomic (as transactions) or it isn't? I want to avoid the deadlocks. If it's atomic, then I don't need to worry about concurrent locks. But I think it's not. This is an example for deadlock: a.) select * from test where id in (1, 3, 4) b.) select * from test where id in (2, 4, 5) c.) select * from test where id in (5, 1, 6) If it's not atomic, then: - a locks 1. - b locks 2. - c locks 5. - a locks 3. - b locks 4. - c try to lock 1, but it locked by a - a try to lock 4, but it locked by b - b try to lock 5, but it locked by c DEADLOCK!!! As I read select for update doesn't support timeout. I've found two timeout that could be affects on it. Which one I need to redefine temporarily? lock_timeout (integer) statement_timeout (integer) Somebody wrote statement_timeout, but why PG have lock_timeout then? Thank you for your help! Regards dd
