On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> You have not shown us the full sequence of events leading up to the > deadlock failure, but I hypothesize that there were yet other transactions > that updated that same row in the very recent past. That might allow > there to be more than one tuple lock involved (ie, locks on different > versions of the row), which would create some scope for a deadlock > failure. > Well, showing all events is difficult due to parallelization of importer, but shouldn't "select for update" solve the problem of other locks? The transactions are exactly as shown - select for update and then update. depesz
