Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-08-12 10:18:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sounds reasonable to me. If you do this, I'll see whether pademelon
>> can be adjusted to build using the minimum macro expansion buffer
>> size specified by the C standard.
> Here's the patch attached.
Looks like you need to pay more attention to the surrounding comments:
some of them still refer to the code as a macro, and I see at least one
place that explicitly mentions double-eval hazards that this presumably
removes. (I think your previous patch re fastgetattr was also a bit weak
on the comments, btw.)
regards, tom lane
