Thank you. I have added it to next commitfest
<https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/114/>.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
