Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > Indeed. 45e004f looks like the most interesting bit here. FWIW, I > would not mind re-enabling that on HEAD, as of something like the > attached. I have done a dozen of runs without seeing a test failure, > and knowing that we don't support anything older than Win10 makes me > feel safer about this change. Any objections?
We're early enough in the v16 cycle to have plenty of time to detect any problems, so I see little reason not to try it. regards, tom lane