"Tena Sakai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
