> On 30 Mar 2020, at 20:28, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I see this patch is marked as RFC since 12/30, but there seems to be >> quite a lot of discussion about the syntax, keywords and how exactly to >> identify the superuser. So I'll switch it back to needs review, which I >> think is a better representation of the current state. > > Somebody switched it to RFC again, despite the facts that > > (a) there is absolutely no consensus about what syntax to use > (and some of the proposals imply very different patches), > > (b) there's been no discussion at all since the last CF, and > > (c) the patch is still failing in the cfbot (src/test/ssl fails). > > While resolving (c) would seem to be the author's problem, I don't > think it's worth putting effort into that detail until we have > some meeting of the minds about (a). So I'll put this back to > "needs review".
Since there hasn't been any more progress on this since the last CF, and the fact that the outcome may result in a completely different patch, I'm inclined to mark this returned with feedback rather than have it linger. The discussion can continue and the entry be re-opened. Thoughts? cheers ./daniel
