On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:55 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> When reviewing a recent patch, I missed a place where Datum was being
> converted to another type implicitly (ie without going though a
> DatumGetXXX() macro). Thanks to Jeff for fixing that (commit
> b538c90b), but I was curious to see if I
>
> I should probably split this into "actionable" (categories 3 and 4)
> and "noise and scaffolding" patches.
>
Breaking down the noise-and-scaffolding into some subgroups might make the
rather long patches more palatable/exceedingly-obvious:
* (Datum) 0 ---> NullDatum
* 0 > NullDatum
* The
