ilmari@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