"Chris White" <cjwhite@cisco.com> writes:
>> BTW what do you mean exactly by "commit" above? There is no notion of
>> committing a large object separately from committing a transaction.
> I meant committing the transaction. The first transaction commit is after
> the large object is written and closed. Second is after the large object
> update and close. Then the third is after the associated tables are updated.
Hmm. So the state you are seeing corresponds to the commit of the first
transaction, as far as the LO itself goes --- that's perfectly
reasonable. But I don't see how it could be that the third transaction
appears committed while the second does not. Are you issuing all these
transactions over the same database connection? Perhaps the second
transaction isn't really committed?
regards, tom lane