Re: Confirmation on concurrent SELECT FOR UPDATE with ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING

> On 30 Apr 2026, at 6:42 PM, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> 
> So I'd say that the documentation is not quite accurate.  Really, the DELETE does not place
> a row lock on the row.
> 
> That must account for the behavior difference: after the SELECT ... FOR UPDATE, the
> INSERT ... ON CONFLICT interprets the row lock as a conflict and moves on, while in the
> DELETE case it sees no conflict (yet), but has to wait for the transaction to complete before
> it knows how to proceed.
> 
> I cannot say if that is intentional; as I said initially, I am surprised too.

Thank you for your additional insights, Laurenz.

Kind regards,
Matt