Tom Lane wrote:
> Back when we put in the ability to use "x IS NULL" as a btree search
> condition, we intentionally left out "x IS NOT NULL", on the grounds
> that it is comparable to "x <> something" which is not btree-searchable
> either. However, it occurs to me that we missed a bet here. The
Back when we put in the ability to use "x IS NULL" as a btree search
condition, we intentionally left out "x IS NOT NULL", on the grounds
that it is comparable to "x <> something" which is not btree-searchable
either. However, it occurs to me that we missed a bet here. The NOT
NULL condition coul
