The SQL standard appears to specify that IS [NOT] NULL's tests of field
nullness are non-recursive, ie, we shouldn't consider that a composite
field with value ROW(NULL,NULL) is null for this purpose.
ExecEvalNullTest got this right, but eval_const_expressions did not,
leading to weird inconsistencies depending on whether the expression
was such that the planner could apply constant folding.

Also, adjust the docs to mention that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM NULL can be
used as a substitute test if a simple null check is wanted for a rowtype
argument.  That motivated reordering things so that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM
is described before IS [NOT] NULL.  In HEAD, I went a bit further and added
a table showing all the comparison-related predicates.

Per bug #14235.  Back-patch to all supported branches, since it's certainly
undesirable that constant-folding should change the semantics.

Report and patch by Andrew Gierth; assorted wordsmithing and revised
regression test cases by me.

Report: <20160708024746.1410.57282@wrigleys.postgresql.org>