Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> OK, well, if the consensus is in favor of a back-patch, so be it. It
> seems a little strange to me to back-patch a commit that doesn't fix
> anything, but I just work here.
Well, it's true that we can't point to specific field reports and say
that this will fix those. But it's not like our Windows port is so
rock-solid-reliable that we should give it the benefit of the doubt
about existing behaviors being correct. We do know that the code path
in question is used in previous branches --- we put it there for a
reason --- and I think it's probably possible that it gets exercised
in corner cases, even pre-9.5.
regards, tom lane
