In 1d, for $V(x) = g\delta(x)$, integrating the TISE yields (assuming that $\psi$ is bounded$^\dagger$, so as to suppress the term containing $E$) $$ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \left( \psi'(\varepsilon) - \psi'(-\varepsilon) \right) + g\psi(0) = 0 $$ for $\varepsilon\to0^+$.
Now, this doesn't at all imply that $\psi$ has to be continuous (even though it is bounded) at $x=0$ (unlike the case when $V$ is bounded). But still, everywhere I've seen, it is implicitly assumed that $\psi$ is continuous at $x=0$, and eigenstates are derived using this.
I can see that in the above equation, if $\psi$ is discontinuous at $x=0$, then we'll have trouble writing $\psi(0)$—I could define it anything if it isn't continuous. Moreover, I am doubtful is the following equality for $\varepsilon>0$ (which was used in getting the above equation) is valid even when $\psi$ is discontinuous at $x=0$. $$ \int_{-\varepsilon}^\varepsilon \delta(x)\psi(x)\; dx \stackrel{?}{=} \psi(0) $$
Question: If the above questioned equation is valid only for continuous $\psi$, is it "our desire" to exploit this equality so that we end up restricting the continuity of $\psi$ "by hand?" If so, what is the guarantee that there are not other kinds of solutions?
$^\dagger$This is "put in by hand."
Note: A similar question was posted five years ago, but was never satisfactorily answered. So I post this again, with more details, hoping that it'll be clearly answered this time.