Such a condition is unsatisfiable in combination with any other type of
btree-indexable condition (since we assume btree operators are always
strict).  8.3 and 8.4 had an explicit test for this, which I removed in
commit 29c4ad98, mistakenly thinking that
the case would be subsumed by the more general handling of IS (NOT) NULL
added in that patch.  Put it back, and improve the comments about it, and
add a regression test case.

Per bug #6079 from Renat Nasyrov, and analysis by Dean Rasheed.