I wrote:
> After further thought, it seems like the place to deal with this is
> really operator_predicate_proof(), as in the attached draft patch
> against HEAD. This passes the smell test for me, in the sense that
> it's an arguably correct and general extension of the proof rules,
> but it could use more testing.
Was anyone planning to do more work or testing on this? Or should
I just push it so we can close the CF entry?
regards, tom lane
