Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2013-08-30 18:55:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure. It's pretty disturbing that this wasn't caught earlier;
>> it seems to me that means there's no regression coverage that hits
>> ExecReScanMergeAppend. However, I don't much like this specific test case
>> because it seems like hitting the bug could depend on what series of
>> random values you get.
> Hm, that should be fixable. How about:
Looks good, applied.
regards, tom lane