> Patch teaches it to ignore nulls when it's known that the operator being > used is strict. It is harmless and has the benefit that constraint > exclusion gives an answer that is consistent with what actually running > such a qual against a table's rows would do.
Yes, I understood that. I just meant that I don't know if it is the best way to skip NULLs inside "next_fn". Maybe the caller of the "next_fn"s should skip them. Anyway, the committer can judge this better. > Yeah. Rearranged the code to fix that. This version looks correct to me. > + state->next = (state->next != NULL) ? lnext(state->next) : NULL; > + node = (state->next != NULL) ? lfirst(state->next) : NULL; I think it is unnecessary to check for (state->next != NULL) two times. We can put those in a single if.
