On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:31:42PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >
>> > > This sounds like the exact right patch. However, since it has a lot
>> > > of
>> > > Windows-specific code, and we don't have any Windows experts, I am not
>> > > sure how this can be applied.
>> >
>> > Are you saying we will remove the Windows port? That sounds awesome,
>> > thanks! If you need help, I will volunteer on the spot, just LMK.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Well, I _am_ saying that historically patches that touch the innards of
>> the Windows API are rarely applied as we can't evaluate or maintain the
>> code. I can probably come up with an example if you want.
>
> I think it is true to a great extent that Windows patches receive less
> attention, however in many cases the patch finally do get committed.
> I think the right thing for this patch is that Author should submit it to
> next CF, so that it could be tracked and reviewed, once it is reviewed
> by some one having Windows access, it should be taken care by
> Committer.
Adding it to the next CF would be a good first step. I got some access
to some 2k3 and 2k8 boxes, so I think that I could give it a shot.
--
Michael
