Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Indeed. 45e004f looks like the most interesting bit here. FWIW, I
> would not mind re-enabling that on HEAD, as of something like the
> attached. I have done a dozen of runs without seeing a test failure,
> and knowing that we don't support anything older than Win10 makes me
> feel safer about this change. Any objections?
We're early enough in the v16 cycle to have plenty of time to detect
any problems, so I see little reason not to try it.
regards, tom lane