Re: stopgap fix for signal handling during restore_command

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