Re: Teach predtest about IS [NOT] <boolean> proofs

James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> [ v6 patchset ]

I went ahead and committed 0001 after one more round of review

statements; my bad).  I also added the changes in test_predtest.c from
0002.  I attach a rebased version of 0002, as well as 0003 which isn't
changed, mainly to keep the cfbot happy.

I'm still not happy with what you did in predicate_refuted_by_recurse:
it feels wrong and rather expensively so.  There has to be a better
way.  Maybe strong vs. weak isn't quite the right formulation for
refutation tests?

			regards, tom lane