Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oRm6D-00034y-B9 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 03:03:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oRm6C-00021r-9X for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 03:03:04 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oRm6C-00021g-0i for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 03:03:04 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oRm69-00060O-U5 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 03:03:02 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 27R32wtO2167380; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 23:02:58 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Andres Freund , Niyas Sait , Thomas Munro , Julien Rouhaud , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support In-reply-to: References: <20220826012907.gjw3jdqdgsts5y65@awork3.anarazel.de> <20220826032943.nwoepbegzwntbmks@awork3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Sat, 27 Aug 2022 11:33:51 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2167378.1661569378.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 23:02:58 -0400 Message-ID: <2167379.1661569378@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier 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