I wrote: > Yup, sure looks like a bug to me, especially since it seems to work as > expected before 9.5. No idea offhand what broke it.
The answer is, I broke it, through some ill-advised neatnik-ism :-(,
ie clearing a field I thought would be unused but it wasn't.
Fix pushed. Thanks for the report!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
