"Chris White \(cjwhite\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does this mean it could be any transaction, even one that has not done > anything with large objects, but one that started prior to the large objects > being deleted?
Exactly.
> All access to the DB is done via JDBC, so has this JDBC issue been fixed in
> 7.4.5?
You'd have to ask the JDBC guys ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
