On 7/2/20 3:14 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> 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?
No objection. -- Vik Fearing
