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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
