Avoid using list_length() to test for empty list.

The standard way to check for list emptiness is to compare the
List pointer to NIL; our list code goes out of its way to ensure
that that is the only representation of an empty list.  (An
acceptable alternative is a plain boolean test for non-null
pointer, but explicit mention of NIL is usually preferable.)

Various places didn't get that memo and expressed the condition
with list_length(), which might not be so bad except that there
were such a variety of ways to check it exactly: equal to zero,
less than or equal to zero, less than one, yadda yadda.  In the
name of code readability, let's standardize all those spellings
as "list == NIL" or "list != NIL".  (There's probably some
microscopic efficiency gain too, though few of these look to be
at all performance-critical.)

A very small number of cases were left as-is because they seemed
more consistent with other adjacent list_length tests that way.

Peter Smith, with bikeshedding from a number of us

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHut+PtQYe+ENX5KrONMfugf0q6NHg4hR5dAhqEXEc2eefFeig@mail.gmail.com

src/backend/rewrite/rewriteDefine.c

@@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ DefineQueryRewrite(const char *rulename,
 		 *
 		 * So there cannot be INSTEAD NOTHING, ...
 		 */
-		if (list_length(action) == 0)
+		if (action == NIL)
 			ereport(ERROR,
 					(errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
 					 errmsg("INSTEAD NOTHING rules on SELECT are not implemented"),