Re: Add ssl_(supported|shared)_groups to sslinfo

From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add ssl_(supported|shared)_groups to sslinfo
Date: 2026-02-23 17:58:35
Message-ID: srua2tidoiztaytmxlwjfpjhntxelmxpfta4lhulvlker444yg@sf232zqm3qvs
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 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(at)yesql(dot)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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-02-23 18:06:01 Re: AIX support
Previous Message Srirama Kucherlapati 2026-02-23 17:54:28 RE: AIX support