> On 1 Mar 2023, at 21:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@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