> On Nov 18, 2022, at 4:04 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> This is a completely bad idea. If it takes that level of analysis
>> to see that msg can't be null, we should leave the test in place.
>> Any future modification of either this code or what it calls could
>> break the conclusion.
>
> +1. Also, even if the check were quite obviously useless, it's cheap
> insurance. It's difficult to believe that it hurts performance in any
> measurable way. If anything, we would benefit from having more sanity
> checks in our code, rather than fewer.
>
Thanks for the explanation! Got it.
