Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:58:35 +0100
From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add ssl_(supported|shared)_groups to sslinfo
Message-ID: <srua2tidoiztaytmxlwjfpjhntxelmxpfta4lhulvlker444yg@sf232zqm3qvs>
References: <d57duqvzkxe43oons3jkdq7pj2wacidg7qorxommri74evu3l2@4x53she7mf77>
 <D1EC4B00-9593-488F-916D-090A73E69B4E@yesql.se>
 <CAOYmi+nkT7rkbNd6que0wtz=epOikgBKSDR88DQ=cyNJwiUw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+nkT7rkbNd6que0wtz=epOikgBKSDR88DQ=cyNJwiUw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/srua2tidoiztaytmxlwjfpjhntxelmxpfta4lhulvlker444yg%40sf232zqm3qvs>
Precedence: bulk

> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 08:48:02AM -0800, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 6:32 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> > +CREATE FUNCTION ssl_shared_groups() RETURNS text
> 
> I don't feel strongly about this, so feel free to disregard: Is there
> a reason this API is focusing on the shared group list as opposed to
> the actual negotiated group in use? The latter seems more widely
> useful to me, and it'd match up with ssl_cipher(). (Or maybe we
> already have the negotiated group somewhere and I just never noticed?)

No deep reason, it was just useful for some particular experiments and
for gathering understanding of what's going on. Would you find it
reasonable to have both, shared groups and the negotiated group, or
having only the latter is strictly better?