> On 12 Sep 2017, at 22:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ]
>
> Mark Dilger writes:
>>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short, if you are supposed to write
>>> FOO *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n);
>>> then the macro designer blew it
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ]
>
> Mark Dilger writes:
>>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short, if you are supposed to write
>>> FOO *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n);
>>> then the macro designer ble
[ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ]
Mark Dilger writes:
>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In short, if you are supposed to write
>> FOO *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n);
>> then the macro designer blew it, because the name implies that it
>> returns FOO, not po