Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@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".
regards, tom lane