On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:19:50PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Given the evidence that there's a problem, I agree with reverting
>> that. I'd suggest keeping the cosmetic rename of the function,
>> but we have to put back the Windows-doesn't-HAVE_WORKING_LINK logic.
>
> +1. I think the indications are definitely clear enough that this has
> to go back in.
No problem from me to keep the rename, and so this leads to the simple
patch attached, then. Any comments?
>> Grepping in the v12 branch, I find a second use of HAVE_WORKING_LINK
>> in contrib/pg_standby. But that seems to be in a non-WIN32 code path,
>> so I don't think putting that back is necessary.
>
> .. and apart front aht I *really* doubt that one has many users,
> especially on Windows :)
Yeah, agreed.
--
Michael
