From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
        okano.naoki@jp.fujitsu.com,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17448: In Windows 10, version 1703 and later,
 huge_pages doesn't work.
In-reply-to: <YyRxXJ+FXOWTBBrb@paquier.xyz>
References: <17448-0a96583a67edb1f7@postgresql.org>
 <Yj6oxYsBE5LXA8ZP@paquier.xyz> <20220326082408.moh55zuecxjmewnm@jrouhaud>
 <CA+hUKGLwOSf-QwVtCcKx9xvugN2BSzEBBeD5DNyTXgcSRp5sTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YyRxXJ+FXOWTBBrb@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:51:40 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3677877.1663338578.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:29:38 -0400
Message-ID: <3677878.1663338578@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3677878.1663338578%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> So based on that I think that we could just apply and backpatch what
> you have here.  This issue is much easier to reason about on HEAD
> where we just care about Win >= 10, and we've be rather careful with
> changes like that when it came to Windows.  Any objections about doing 
> a backpatch?  I'd like to do so after an extra lookup, if there are no
> objections.  Or would folks prefer a HEAD-only fix for now?

Let's just fix it in HEAD.  I think the risk/reward ratio isn't very
good here.

(I'd be particularly against changing this in v10, because 10.23 will
be the last one; there will be no second chance if we ship it broken.)

			regards, tom lane