Tom Lane wrote:
> Considering that you're incrementing bufptr inside the macro, it hardly
> seems that double-evaluation is a problem: the argument pretty much has
> to be a variable. OTOH there is no reason for the input argument to be
> treated that way. I'd suggest just one macro [...]
Ah, yeah, that works. Attached is a revised patch -- I'll apply it
tomorrow barring any objections. I also fixed the semi-colon -- thanks
for the review.
-Neil