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? I'm assuming that
there is no ordering implied/guaranteed by "for update of a, b".
Or am I missing something?
Clarence
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
