Re: [PATCH] contrib/seg: Fix PG_GETARG_SEG_P definition

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] contrib/seg: Fix PG_GETARG_SEG_P definition
Date: 2019-11-04 18:01:44
Message-ID: 20191104180144.k6sn3rpjuzi4yfxi@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-11-04 11:30:23 +0000, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> >> I just noticed that when contrib/seg was converted to V1 calling
> >> convention (commit 389bb2818f4), the PG_GETARG_SEG_P() macro got defined
> >> in terms of PG_GETARG_POINTER(). But it itself calls DatumGetPointer(),
> >> so shouldn't it be using PG_GETARG_DATUM()?
> >
> > Yup, I agree. Pushed.
>
> Thanks!

Thanks both of you.

- Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-11-04 18:04:09 Re: 64 bit transaction id
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-11-04 18:00:28 Re: [PATCH] Include triggers in EXPLAIN