Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: > ... and it looks like some of the back-branches are failing for Windows. > I'm assuming this is because c290e79 was only back-patched to v15. My > first instinct is just to back-patch that one all the way to v11, but maybe > there's an alternative involving #ifdef WIN32. Are there any concerns with > back-patching c290e79?
Sounds fine to me.
regards, tom lane
