> On 30 Mar 2020, at 20:28, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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".
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