"Chris White \(cjwhite\)" <cjwhite@cisco.com> 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