Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@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
