> On 1 Mar 2023, at 21:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Yes please! > >> I have occasionally wondered whether just passing the isnull argument as >> NULL would be sufficient, so we don't need a new function. > > I thought about that too. I think I prefer Daniel's formulation > with the new function, but I'm not especially set on that.
I prefer the new function since the name makes the code self documented rather than developers not used to the API having to look up what the last NULL actually means. -- Daniel Gustafsson
