George Woodring <george(dot)woodring(at)iglass(dot)net> writes:
> 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?
With the amount of detail you've provided (viz: none), it's impossible
for anyone to guess what your problem actually is, let alone speculate
on suitable solutions.
regards, tom lane