Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes:
> On 03.09.26 15:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I concur with Andreas that 0005 looks a bit half-baked.
>> Maybe that's the right amount of effort for the back branches,
>> but something else should happen in HEAD.
> Right. Here is another patch at the end (0006) that I propose for
> master only that makes using unsupported options an error. Some
> Windows-only options already behaved that way, so this just makes the
> rest consistent.
With that addition, this looks fine to me.
regards, tom lane
