> This is kind of exciting for me, as IIRC it's the first field-detected
> bug that that work fixes. However, I'm not real sure right now how
> we might fix it in the back branches ...
Thanks for the insight! And I'm glad this report can be help. :)
Would you know a way to avoid this bug? I could probably tweak the query
until the result is looking good, but I would prefer to make sure the
bug won't reappear if the query is used with different data or context.
