Re: Update / Lock (and ShareLock) question

Tom Lane a écrit :
> Augustin Amann <augustin(at)waw(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane a écrit :
>>
>>> What that really means is that the first process is waiting for a row
>>> lock that's held by the second one --- that is, it's trying to update a
>>> row that the second transaction has updated and not yet committed.
>>>
>
>
>> I understand. But a dead lock is for me, a situation that sould not
>> appear, event if the storage is slow ... I'm wrong ?
>>
>
> If you're getting deadlocks on these, then what you have is two
> concurrent transactions trying to update the same two tuples in
> different orders. Which is a classic deadlock case, and the only
> fix is to fix your app so that multiple updates are done in some
> consistent order --- or broken into multiple transactions.
>
>
Yes, I understand, but my problem is that no transaction are involved in
our case, just one update same statement ...
I'll look for an hidden transaction (ask the dev, pgpool) :/ ...
Thank you for your confirming that.

Regards,
Augustin.
> regards, tom lane
>