I've found some references indicating that it does this, but the lock on the parent table had to be shared to prevent
thedeletion of the row from the parent table.
What makes me suspect it's a lock on the parent table is the word "ShareLock" in the logs. A SELECT ... FOR UPDATE
statementshouldn't place that type of lock on the table it's selecting.
On Sunday, March 8, 2026 at 12:19:35 PM GMT-4, Shaheed Haque <shaheedhaque@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2026 at 15:15, <felix.quintgz@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is pure speculation.
It's possible that using SELECT FOR UPDATE also locks the rows in the parent tables referenced in the field list.
I believe this happened in older versions of PostgreSQL.
Interesting. In the query, paiyroll_endpoint.op_id and paiyroll_endpoint.client_id ARE foreign keys to other tables.
But I don't see any reference to locking rows in parent tables in the docs
around https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/explicit-locking.html#LOCKING-ROWS.A quick poke around did not reveal
anydocumentation that confirms this one way or another. And to my admittedly in-expert thinking, it seems
surprising thatthe parent might need to be locked?
On Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 04:25:01 AM GMT-5, Shaheed Haque <shaheedhaque@gmail.com> wrote:
[I originally posted this over
at https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/unexpected-deadlock-across-two-separate-rows-using-postgres-17-and-select-for-update/44294/1,
butthat thread ran into a dead end. Apologies for the cross-post]
Hi,
I'm trying to understand/fix a rare deadlock in my application. Given my limited knowledge, what seems odd to me is
thatthe deadlock involves two processes running exactly the same code/query, each of which (tries to) avoid issues by
lockingexactly one row for update. In Django-speak, the code does this:
