ilm...@ilmari.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.
regards, tom lane
