The original coding correctly noted that these aren't just redundancies
(they're effectively X IS NOT NULL, assuming = is strict). However, they
got treated that way if X happened to be in a single-member EquivalenceClass
already, which could happen if there was an ORDER BY X clause, for instance.
The simplest and most reliable solution seems to be to not try to process
such clauses through the EquivalenceClass machinery; just throw them back
for traditional processing. The amount of work that'd be needed to be
smarter than that seems out of proportion to the benefit.
Per bug #5084 from Bernt Marius Johnsen, and analysis by Andrew Gierth.
25549edb26