"Tena Sakai" <tsakai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> What you have not shown us is what transaction has >> actually *got* a lock on 16496. > Would you mind enlightening me as to how I can do so? Are there no other rows in pg_locks that reference relation 16496? None of the ones you showed us had granted=t, but there must be one unless things are much more broken than I think. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
