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
pgsql-general by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных