Thanks EJ. I agree that the reporting/emitting boundary feels like the right SPI boundary, but I wonder if we can simplify this even further.
Iceberg scan and commit metrics look very similar to events to me. They are append only, asynchronously consumed, often forwarded to external systems, and have similar retention and cleanup requirements. More details can be found in this thread [1]. In that case, Polaris may only need to accept the report and emit an event through the existing event framework. Filtering, async delivery, custom sinks, and retention mechanisms could then be shared instead of introducing a separate metrics specific extension layer and SPI. The main requirement I still see is querying metrics through Polaris. If we want that battery included experience, we could work on a persistence listener implementation that selectively saves metrics and expose it via the IRC event endpoint which seems pretty close in Iceberg community. Another option I like more is to allow users to develop their own listener, so they can persist scan/commit metrics to any systems they prefer. In general, that feels like an implementation choice on top of the event framework rather than something that needs to shape the core architecture. 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread/x9j8nscvy8hq61tyn01mj8yp6n9of0kp Thanks, Yufei On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 5:14 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Good point. I agree the existing PolarisMetricsReporter is already very > close to the right conceptual boundary. I am not proposing a second > parallel reporter concept. The distinction I am trying to make is narrower: > > Current state: > > - PolarisMetricsReporter is the existing metrics reporting hook. > - But it currently lives under runtime/service. > - Its contract is documented around Quarkus/CDI discovery and > @Identifier > selection. > - The default implementation is log-only. > - The durable implementation writes through PolarisMetricsManager and > MetricsPersistence. > - MetricsPersistence is currently inherited by BasePersistence. > > My proposal: > > - Keep the reporting/emitting boundary as the SPI. > - Revise that contract in a framework-agnostic optional Iceberg *metrics > extension API layer*. > - Keep runtime/service responsible for REST ingestion, table/authz > validation, and runtime wiring. > - Keep the battery implementation log-only in the metrics extension API > layer, *not under runtime/service*. > - Treat durable JDBC metrics as one implementation of the reporting SPI. > - Decompose the MetricsPersistence and BasePersistence coupling as > durable implementation detail. > > So the difference is not “new reporter concept vs old reporter concept.” > but: > > > - PolarisMetricsReporter today = runtime/service CDI-shaped hook. > - Target reporting SPI = same conceptual boundary, but placed in the > right extension API layer and kept framework-agnostic. > > For the current metrics PR, I think the minimal architectural cleanup > before merge is to *put the reporting SPI contract and the battery default > in the right place*. The durable JDBC implementation, event-backed async > implementation, external queue support, and deeper persistence cleanup can > continue as follow-ups, as long as we do not lock the SPI boundary to > BasePersistence or to runtime/service wiring. > > -ej > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:00 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi EJ, > > > > Thanks for the recap / summary! > > > > > Do folks agree that the stable SPI boundary should be > > metrics reporting/emitting, not metrics persistence? > > > > SGTM. > > > > > Does an optional Iceberg metrics extension API layer sound like the > right > > home for this SPI? > > > > How is that different from current PolarisMetricsReporter? > > > > > Should the current durable metrics work be reframed as a durable > > JDBC reference implementation of that SPI? > > > > SGTM. > > > > > What is the smallest PR sequence to get there without blocking > > the current metrics work unnecessarily? > > > > Let's get https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4397 merged first. > > > > Then, I'd propose isolating the Metrics schema from the MetaStore schema. > > This will probably have some ripple effect into the bootstrap workflows, > so > > it's not a trivial change. > > > > Then, let's reassess. > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 5:40 PM EJ Wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > Thanks again for the discussion today. I updated the sync doc with > notes > > > from the third metrics architecture sync: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/100h7c4damrUzVuquYbBHM0EvA4LSWuW2IT2dN_7nYVA/edit?tab=t.k96s2xyqr5u1 > > > > > > A few highlights from today’s discussion: > > > > > > - We clarified that Iceberg metrics reporting can be interpreted > > either > > > as sync or async handling from Polaris’s perspective, so Polaris > > should > > > stay flexible as a platform instead of baking one handling model > into > > > the > > > REST API behavior. > > > - We aligned that the built-in (battery) behavior for metrics > emitting > > > can stay simple: no-op/log-only is enough as the default. > > > - Durable metrics persistence should be treated as an implementation > > of > > > the metrics reporting path, not as the core SPI boundary. > > > - The existing durable metrics work can be reviewed as a reference > > > implementation of the reporting SPI, with persistence-related logic > > kept > > > self-contained under a metrics durable implementation module rather > > than > > > scattered through core entity persistence. > > > - Dashboard/insights remains a real use case, but we agreed to keep > it > > > separate from the core metrics intake discussion for now. > > > > > > I also did a quick source check after the meeting to make sure we are > > > describing the current state accurately. > > > > > > Current state: > > > > > > - Polaris already has a metrics reporting hook: > > PolarisMetricsReporter. > > > - The default implementation is DefaultMetricsReporter, selected by > > > polaris.iceberg-metrics.reporting.type=default. It is log-only, > > > effectively quiet unless metrics logging is enabled. > > > - There is also a PersistingMetricsReporter, selected by > > > polaris.iceberg-metrics.reporting.type=persisting, which converts > > > Iceberg scan/commit reports into Polaris metrics records and writes > > > through > > > PolarisMetricsManager -> MetricsPersistence. > > > - MetricsPersistence currently exists in the persistence layer and > is > > > inherited by BasePersistence. > > > > > > My read from the discussion is that the target boundary should not be > > > MetricsPersistence as inherited by BasePersistence. That path should be > > > decomposed as durable implementation detail (taken care of by > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4397). The stable extension > point > > > should instead be the metrics reporting/emitting boundary. > > > > > > Concretely, I think the next proposal should be shaped like this: > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > Define the proper metrics reporting SPI at an optional Iceberg > metrics > > > extension API layer. > > > > > > Example direction: > > > > > > public interface IcebergMetricsReporter { > > > void reportMetric(IcebergMetricsReportContext context, > > > MetricsReport report); > > > } > > > > > > The context would carry the small Polaris-resolved envelope: > > > catalog/table identity, report type, received timestamp, and > > > request/trace > > > context if available. The raw Iceberg MetricsReport remains the > > payload. > > > 2. > > > > > > Keep runtime/service as the REST ingestion and wiring layer. > > > > > > The REST handler still resolves the table and performs authz before > > > accepting the report. After that, it calls the selected reporting > > > implementation. > > > 3. > > > > > > Keep the battery default no-op/log-only. > > > > > > This preserves an out-of-box safe default and avoids requiring a > > durable > > > metrics store for every Polaris deployment. > > > 4. > > > > > > Move durable JDBC metrics into a self-contained implementation of > the > > > reporting SPI. > > > > > > That implementation can own its schema, bootstrap, retention, and > read > > > API support. It should not define the core reporting SPI boundary, > and > > > it > > > should not require metrics persistence to remain inherited from > > > BasePersistence. > > > 5. > > > > > > Treat async/event-backed handling as another implementation of the > > same > > > reporting SPI. > > > > > > For example, an event-backed reporter could enqueue a metrics event > > and > > > let listeners handle durable storage or other sinks. If we later > need > > a > > > replaceable queue engine, that seems like a shared event/metrics > > > substrate > > > topic rather than a metrics-only requirement. > > > > > > This framing lets us keep the REST metrics endpoint simple, preserve > the > > > current default behavior, support durable metrics users, and still > leave > > > room for async/event-backed or external-queue-based implementations. > > > > > > I think the main follow-up questions are: > > > > > > - Do folks agree that the stable SPI boundary should be metrics > > > reporting/emitting, not metrics persistence? > > > - Does an optional Iceberg metrics extension API layer sound like > the > > > right home for this SPI? > > > - Should the current durable metrics work be reframed as a durable > > JDBC > > > reference implementation of that SPI? > > > - What is the smallest PR sequence to get there without blocking the > > > current metrics work unnecessarily? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -ej > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 5:16 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi JB, > > > > > > > > Could you set up another meeting, please? Same time on Wednesday as > > last > > > > time... I hope it works for everyone. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 8:06 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on another sync call next week. > > > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 4:52 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT about another sync call next week? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 5:29 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi EJ, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the summary! It covers what we discussed in the > > meeting > > > > very > > > > > > > well, IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to concrete PRs :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 5:08 PM EJ Wang < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi folks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> We had a community sync earlier, thanks JB for scheduling it. > > > Notes > > > > > from > > > > > > >> the first metrics architecture sync (May 6, 10-11am PT). > > > Discussion > > > > > doc > > > > > > >> with per-section status: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/100h7c4damrUzVuquYbBHM0EvA4LSWuW2IT2dN_7nYVA/edit?tab=t.0 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *The meeting covered both topics from the doc. Direction-level > > > > > alignment > > > > > > >> was reached on the headline pieces; details remain for PR > review > > > or > > > > > > >> follow-up sessions.* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Topic 1 — Persistence schema redesign* > > > > > > >> Idea-level alignment on consolidating per-type tables > > > > > > >> (scan_metrics_report, > > > > > > >> commit_metrics_report) into a single metrics_report table. The > > > > > > motivating > > > > > > >> cost is the surface area added by every new metric type today: > > new > > > > > > table, > > > > > > >> SPI method, record class, model, converter, schema migration. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Most schema details are deferred to the schema PR. A few > > specific > > > > > points > > > > > > >> came up: > > > > > > >> • metric_schema_version: Yufei prefers dropping it, since > > there > > > is > > > > > no > > > > > > >> spec-level concept of metrics versioning today and it is hard > to > > > > > define > > > > > > >> unilaterally. Robert prefers keeping it, given IRC v2 is > coming > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > >> schema should be considered against its likely shape; Robert > > also > > > > > raised > > > > > > >> how to differentiate various payload formats if any. EJ's read > > is > > > > that > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> is a two-way-door decision. We can start without the field, > and > > if > > > > IRC > > > > > > v2 > > > > > > >> changes the shape we would likely roll a corresponding new > > schema > > > > > > anyway, > > > > > > >> which is not particularly costly. > > > > > > >> • Payload format: Robert pointed out that future formats > > beyond > > > > JSON > > > > > > may > > > > > > >> be worth supporting. The exact shape is deferred to the schema > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > >> • Partition strategy: Anand suggested monthly partitioning > > based > > > > on > > > > > > his > > > > > > >> experience as potentially helpful at scale. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Topic 2 — Where metrics ingestion and storage belong* > > > > > > >> Idea-level alignment that metrics should be a separated SPI > from > > > the > > > > > > >> entity > > > > > > >> persistence stack. Two reasons surfaced: (a) workloads and > > > > capability > > > > > > >> requirements diverge enough that coupling them creates > > artificial > > > > > > >> constraints, and (b) admin experience improves when metrics > has > > > its > > > > > own > > > > > > >> bootstrap, retention, and lifecycle. Dmitri noted Polaris > being > > a > > > > > > platform > > > > > > >> should have the flexibility to support different persistence > > > > backends > > > > > > per > > > > > > >> concern, and pointed to a concrete next step of separating the > > > JDBC > > > > > > >> bootstrap for metrics from the metastore bootstrap. Robert > > > proposed > > > > an > > > > > > >> additional UX extension: detect an unbootstrapped metrics > store > > on > > > > > first > > > > > > >> use and auto-bootstrap rather than requiring an explicit > manual > > > > > > bootstrap > > > > > > >> step. > > > > > > >> The meeting also confirmed that Polaris metrics can start > small > > > and > > > > > stay > > > > > > >> Iceberg-focused. Naming and persistence schema can lean > > > > > > Iceberg-specific. > > > > > > >> If a future expansion to generic-table metrics or operational > > > > metrics > > > > > > >> arrives, an abstraction layer can be built on top of the > Iceberg > > > > > metrics > > > > > > >> reporter at that point. Robert remains on the fence and would > > > prefer > > > > > > >> something more generic but did not block the direction; > Dmitri's > > > > read > > > > > > was > > > > > > >> that the proposed framework already has enough flexibility to > > > absorb > > > > > > >> future > > > > > > >> expansion. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The Trade-offs and Proposed structure sections in the doc were > > not > > > > > > >> reviewed > > > > > > >> in detail. They remain open for either the next sync or PR > > review. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Cross-cutting alignment — battery-included plus pluggable* > > > > > > >> A common philosophy emerged from the discussion. EJ summarized > > it > > > > as: > > > > > > >> Polaris should provide a battery-included UX for beginners and > > the > > > > > > >> flexibility for advanced users to swap the included battery > for > > > > > > something > > > > > > >> more powerful or tailored to their use case. The SPI design > > needs > > > to > > > > > > >> enable > > > > > > >> both. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The inputs that shaped this framing: > > > > > > >> • Anand described how his team uses the current metrics > > > > persistence > > > > > > >> (three metrics consumers in v1.4). > > > > > > >> • Yufei raised Grafana and dashboard integrations as a > > > destination > > > > > use > > > > > > >> case beyond the default. > > > > > > >> • Robert called out that the current design is more > > > JDBC-focused. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Two concrete instances: > > > > > > >> • Async metrics intake: Yufei's initial position was that > > async > > > > > should > > > > > > >> largely live on the producer side and there is not much > Polaris > > > can > > > > > do. > > > > > > >> Robert suggested a Polaris-side default is doable via Vert.x. > > > Dmitri > > > > > > >> agreed > > > > > > >> the direction is worth exploring. The meeting converged on a > > > > > > >> battery-included default (likely Vert.x-backed) with an SPI > > shape > > > > that > > > > > > >> lets > > > > > > >> power users route to a more scalable backend (k8s-hosted > queue, > > > AWS > > > > > SQS, > > > > > > >> etc.). > > > > > > >> • Pluggable destinations: combining Yufei's dashboard use > case > > > > with > > > > > > >> Robert's JDBC-focused call-out, the meeting agreed the SPI > > should > > > be > > > > > > >> structured for multiple sinks so integrations become impl > > choices > > > > > rather > > > > > > >> than architectural changes. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The battery-included default is most likely to use the > existing > > > > > > >> JDBC-backed > > > > > > >> approach. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Direction (idea-level alignment)* > > > > > > >> • Single metrics_report table consolidating per-type > metrics, > > > > > > replacing > > > > > > >> scan_metrics_report and commit_metrics_report > > > > > > >> • Iceberg-focused naming and schema for now, revisit if > > > > > generic-table > > > > > > or > > > > > > >> operational metrics arrive > > > > > > >> • Metrics persistence as a separated SPI, not on > > BasePersistence > > > > > > >> • Bootstrap path separated for metrics, independent of > > metastore > > > > > > >> bootstrap > > > > > > >> • "Battery-included plus pluggable" as the SPI design > > philosophy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Open items* > > > > > > >> • Schema details: metric_schema_version, payload format, IRC > > v2 > > > > > > >> forward-compat shape > > > > > > >> • SPI design details — full review either in the next sync > or > > in > > > > the > > > > > > >> corresponding PR > > > > > > >> • Schema refactor PR ownership > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Action items* > > > > > > >> • EJ to take a first stab at the SPI design and potentially > > > > partner > > > > > > with > > > > > > >> Anand to incorporate the lessons learned from the existing > > > reporter > > > > > and > > > > > > >> persistence work. > > > > > > >> • Schema refactor PR ownership is not yet decided. If anyone > > is > > > > > > >> interested in driving it, reply on this thread. > > > > > > >> • JB to schedule the next sync, tentatively in two weeks. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -ej > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 3:07 PM EJ Wang < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Thanks Yufei for the +1. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > JB, could you help add a biweekly metrics architecture sync > to > > > the > > > > > > >> Polaris > > > > > > >> > community calendar? I'm thinking Thursdays at 9-10am PT, on > > the > > > > > > >> off-weeks > > > > > > >> > from the community meeting (starting May 7), 60 minutes. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Here's a rough agenda to work through over the first few > > > sessions, > > > > > > >> grouped > > > > > > >> > by priority: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *First: foundational direction* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 1. MetricsPersistence: public SPI or internal > implementation > > > > > detail? > > > > > > >> > • Marked @Beta, javadoc calls it a "Service Provider > > > > > Interface", > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > >> > only one consumer (JdbcBasePersistenceImpl), lives on > > > > > BasePersistence. > > > > > > >> If > > > > > > >> > demoted to a private helper inside a persisting reporter > impl, > > > > most > > > > > > >> > downstream design decisions become implementation details > > rather > > > > > than > > > > > > >> > contract questions. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 2. Persistence schema redesign > > > > > > >> > • Current two-table layout (scan_metrics_report, > > > > > > >> > commit_metrics_report) with ~25 flattened columns each. > Every > > > new > > > > > > metric > > > > > > >> > type requires a new table, SPI method, record class, model, > > > > > converter, > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > schema migration. Direction to explore: single table with > > > > > metric_type > > > > > > >> enum, > > > > > > >> > schema_version, and JSON payload column. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Second: design details once direction is set* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 3. Partition key strategy > > > > > > >> > • Single-table design means scan metrics at scale will > > have > > > > > high > > > > > > >> > write concurrency per table. Schema needs to expose enough > > > > structure > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > backends to shard by entity or time range. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 4. Read/write path consistency > > > > > > >> > • Writes go through PolarisMetricsManager on > > > > MetaStoreManager. > > > > > > >> Reads > > > > > > >> > bypass MetaStoreManager and go straight to BasePersistence, > > > > > excluding > > > > > > >> > non-JDBC backends from the read API. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Third: cleanup and alignment* > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 5. PolarisMetricsReporter naming > > > > > > >> > • Only handles IRC (ScanReport/CommitReport), doesn't > > cover > > > > > > generic > > > > > > >> > tables or operational metrics. Name is broader than scope. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 6. PolarisMetricsManager facade passthrough > > > > > > >> > • Entire default method is > > > > > > >> callCtx.getMetaStore().writeScanReport(). > > > > > > >> > Zero logic, passes Level 1 straight through to Level 3. Same > > > > > > >> anti-pattern > > > > > > >> > as PolarisEventManager. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > 7. Iceberg community alignment > > > > > > >> > • Payload-type extension needs discussion on > dev@iceberg. > > > > > > >> obelix74's > > > > > > >> > Feb thread got zero replies. Needs a committer voice. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Lets confirm prioritization in the first session. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > -ej > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 3:18 PM Yufei Gu < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Thanks everyone for continuing to drive this forward. I > agree > > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> >> problem is getting complex enough that a more structured > > > > discussion > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > >> >> help. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> +1 on setting up a biweekly sync for the metrics > > architecture. > > > > I’m > > > > > > >> happy > > > > > > >> >> to > > > > > > >> >> join. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> Yufei > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:34 PM EJ Wang < > > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > Also, I've been looking more closely at the *persistence > > > schema > > > > > in > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> >> > current metrics work*, and I think there's a structural > > > > rigidity > > > > > > >> problem > > > > > > >> >> > worth raising before the shape gets locked in. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > Right now we have two separate tables > (scan_metrics_report > > > and > > > > > > >> >> > commit_metrics_report), each with ~25 flattened columns > > that > > > > > > directly > > > > > > >> >> > mirror the Iceberg report fields. The SPI follows the > same > > > > split: > > > > > > >> >> > writeScanReport and writeCommitReport as separate > methods, > > > with > > > > > > >> per-type > > > > > > >> >> > record classes, converters, and model objects. *The > > practical > > > > > cost: > > > > > > >> >> > adding a new metric type (operational metrics, for > example) > > > > > > requires > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > >> >> new > > > > > > >> >> > table, a new SPI method, a new record class, a new model > > > > class, a > > > > > > new > > > > > > >> >> > converter branch, and a schema migration*. That's a lot > of > > > > > surface > > > > > > >> area > > > > > > >> >> > for what should be "one more kind of metric." > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > *My bias* would be toward a single metrics table with *a > > > typed > > > > > JSON > > > > > > >> >> > payload*. Something like: metric_type (enum), entity_id, > > > > > > >> >> > table_identifier, snapshot_id (nullable), received_ts, > > > > > > >> schema_version, > > > > > > >> >> and > > > > > > >> >> > a payload column for the metric-specific data. The > > > metric_type > > > > + > > > > > > >> >> > schema_version pair gives us a forward-compatible > contract > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > >> >> payload > > > > > > >> >> > shape. Adding a new metric type becomes an enum value > and a > > > > > payload > > > > > > >> >> schema, > > > > > > >> >> > not a schema migration. One thing I think we need to be > > > > > deliberate > > > > > > >> >> about is > > > > > > >> >> > the partition key design. If all metric types land in one > > > > table, > > > > > > scan > > > > > > >> >> > metrics at scale (high concurrency, high frequency across > > > many > > > > > > >> tables) > > > > > > >> >> > could easily create hot partitions. We'd want the > > persistence > > > > > layer > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> >> be > > > > > > >> >> > able to shard by entity or time range, and that means the > > > > logical > > > > > > >> schema > > > > > > >> >> > needs to expose enough structure for backends to > partition > > > on. > > > > I > > > > > > >> don't > > > > > > >> >> > think the current flattened layout gives us that. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > This is getting complex enough that I don't think ad-hoc > > > PR/ML > > > > > > >> threads > > > > > > >> >> > will converge well. *Would people be open to a biweekly > > sync > > > > for > > > > > > >> metrics > > > > > > >> >> > architecture?* I think 30 minutes every two weeks with > > > > interested > > > > > > >> >> parties > > > > > > >> >> > would be enough to work through the schema, SPI shape, > and > > > read > > > > > API > > > > > > >> >> design > > > > > > >> >> > together. Happy to help set that up. > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > -ej > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 2:19 PM EJ Wang < > > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> Reviewed #4115, left a comment on the code organization > > > side. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> One thing stood out: the metrics write path enters > through > > > > > > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager, but the new > > read > > > > path > > > > > > >> >> bypasses > > > > > > >> >> >> MetaStoreManager entirely and goes straight to > > > BasePersistence > > > > > via > > > > > > >> >> >> callContext.getMetaStore(). That means the read API only > > > works > > > > > for > > > > > > >> >> backends > > > > > > >> >> >> that implement BasePersistence. NoSQL and remote > backends > > > > can't > > > > > > >> >> participate. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> Stepping back, I think the metrics subsystem is growing > > into > > > > > > >> something > > > > > > >> >> >> real (write + read + REST API + AuthZ + pagination) *but > > the > > > > > > >> >> persistence > > > > > > >> >> >> side is split across two layers in a way that's hard to > > > > > extend*. I > > > > > > >> put > > > > > > >> >> >> together two diagrams to show what I mean (my best > > effort). > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> *Current state* (Diagram 1): three interfaces at three > > > > different > > > > > > >> >> levels. > > > > > > >> >> >> The engine-facing SPI (PolarisMetricsReporter) is clean. > > But > > > > > > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsManager on MetaStoreManager is a > passthrough > > > to > > > > > > >> >> >> MetricsPersistence on BasePersistence. The @Beta > > annotation > > > > and > > > > > > SPI > > > > > > >> >> javadoc > > > > > > >> >> >> are on the BasePersistence layer, while the actual > > extension > > > > > > points > > > > > > >> >> >> (PolarisMetricsReporter, PolarisMetricsManager) carry no > > > > > stability > > > > > > >> >> >> annotation. The write path goes through the > > MetaStoreManager > > > > > > layer, > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> >> >> read path doesn't. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> *What I envision* (Diagram 2): two SPIs at two levels. > > > > > > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsReporter stays as the engine-facing SPI. > > > > > > >> >> >> PolarisMetricsManager becomes the backend-facing SPI > with > > > both > > > > > > write > > > > > > >> >> and > > > > > > >> >> >> read methods at the MetaStoreManager level, where any > > > backend > > > > > > (JDBC, > > > > > > >> >> NoSQL, > > > > > > >> >> >> remote) can implement them. MetricsPersistence on > > > > > BasePersistence > > > > > > >> goes > > > > > > >> >> >> away. Where metrics actually land is an implementation > > > detail, > > > > > > not a > > > > > > >> >> core > > > > > > >> >> >> interface. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> *Minor naming thing*: PolarisMetricsReporter is broader > > than > > > > > what > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> >> >> actually handles. It only accepts Iceberg REST Catalog > > > metrics > > > > > > >> >> (ScanReport, > > > > > > >> >> >> CommitReport via MetricsReport). Generic table metrics > or > > > > > > >> operational > > > > > > >> >> >> metrics aren't in scope. Not blocking, but worth noting > if > > > the > > > > > > >> metrics > > > > > > >> >> >> surface expands. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> *Rough sketch of how to get there*: > > > > > > >> >> >> 1. Add read methods to PolarisMetricsManager > > > > (listScanReports, > > > > > > >> >> >> listCommitReports) with default no-op, same as the > > existing > > > > > write > > > > > > >> >> methods. > > > > > > >> >> >> (Probably make PolarisMetricsManager more explicit on > > being > > > > > > Iceberg > > > > > > >> >> >> specific like package name or class name etc.) > > > > > > >> >> >> 2. Wire MetricsReportsService through MetaStoreManager > > > > instead > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> >> >> callContext.getMetaStore(). > > > > > > >> >> >> 3. Extract metrics persistence from > > > JdbcBasePersistenceImpl > > > > > into > > > > > > >> its > > > > > > >> >> >> own class. That file carries ~7 responsibilities, > metrics > > > > being > > > > > > one > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> >> them. > > > > > > >> >> >> 4. Remove MetricsPersistence from BasePersistence. > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> *None of this needs to happen in #4115. But if the > > direction > > > > > makes > > > > > > >> >> sense, > > > > > > >> >> >> it would be good to align before the metrics surface > grows > > > > > > further. > > > > > > >> >> Curious > > > > > > >> >> >> what others think.* > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> *My mental model note*: Level 1 MetaStoreManager; level > 2 > > > > > > >> transactional > > > > > > >> >> >> persistence; level 3 base persistence > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> Diagram 1 > > > > > > >> >> >> < > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/bLHDR-Cs4BthLmpIYupw0zbkKQ1r3M-S7Bp8xhhM7WCOb3IM65EaGD9EX2RzxHrHb4CxRelwa4YSDu_lpOVcnZ9jzvM8BBS2uGjQpJC3dtHMSekPtMk44IpsMgEqa5XcCOhCZikQQLP1pR8TAp2n3ILhmZDP20m0fcIvUkAoW2qJXd9z1bpToO9BX3WXu0ucy5rpgGPNm0nW5_epUWtm2Ue3pn3kMOFQmKntGZW0BYtgBSi8k5A2QMwybJNMIbFiGSR9QZc4nUqIvikStF0jHprua5C-amge42aNt3R0f5JaaoivdV2Pkqbx4hee4ymOkBh5BTiB-_uIeGeo8zL8rPsPl4DktdEiK1jkB1NdZCRbrSTecDe_mlHbF0wvBmCkaOH5_S8a_TTTKI6-nmCAkEw4LpxsZ-LbYLKQFKMNOgf_wuM7_bV9gOer5SYMMksBSWXFcbi49KNZXNLicwfe3TETC7gPdPqI7uBcHMb1RSzYq34c6PDUM9mn8HRsUTZEiDBve3NjVZumBj0U7SS37mGO7vcwtiK-_pU7U7L_f-digo9YbhSwIfMRwIITKGXbxdIUTCGF1SeCJxloKsU-3k9ddRbX1eDq1q_fx1JbBGT0glVyXimDuP4TQ5qpCAmnGEj2s_6n5mtn1z-97-63itFQZLPO1Ev2tu_WF7Ju-VPc0Skg5bYXxBhkY1xpD7EM_7fyflSpIsqMgVth5xhVr4eQxWQ8enaSAJQSG16yFSDuJ798rrcXr_3n-lfdk7icQjEBmFujL7AodiP_Y4Z7-YxvtZNs4zMgpNTl6tF8sglyPsmqchrjvQ-m-aP94r-TwCA2Ka8upPJZwtvSpoYCXkYMZU2NXvRMBfq9P3i3Le4VAZUAlUZ_oPKsxPgY0Q_BSKLkyr9bhQhQrJjo_x3TPlIB0DPjnMfcIoYP0QaYw1a0fTKDr8fB6ntNuvmoL1ZGkXa69Njh43zf9GiGxHQrA_jDYWRSzF5--WmTVrN97_Sm8LbLUy_lGBmLanJjFkDlGkRqjA_4tm00 > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> : > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> [image: image.png] > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> Diagram 2 > > > > > > >> >> >> < > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/VLLDR-8m4BtdLupO2sWBLVU8AaGB7AXAbssGzb896SS9RXqxjKqBwkv_tt7iV43fdaZYDpFlpRmnOsE9jhjSH9PRmM31hERKm8scMsuPjJlDe0yheZDc8RR4iYWoBrmMH9CS2a9VICPYUy1OZN0YCy5Q0BCbYNhdCeEK28En8G8wCvbnoQ0R8_05Bc6bkLIz3X03p1zzH7zR-9ZfDquPt9C3qoNCX2yV4G2NbkcKu5jdgGJHt0GbZwnG6i-UP3TUpk5gM6Ldqke350eZUqzoCft3U9xWHvxoa5-7K4nF1J46EbEMafsmdrCBbQ44gVggy18IZrn_ph5asd1ZiIKdQSgueZvjXrQFSFrdC3YN-nXmBacxbGiYyLVxLaBtdhqn0LSzdBDhqQtQoOJeGyad3z0lUqnYgpGB6Ns8oVyta00Dy_WnX0tIOZ8v6SYxHll1TrH6aejAik-mh-AphVFCwSUQqFypElag5QRGFDjQKEd96K1P8QP41c9TzA_IIQyvdAWyv_RSiS3skb0_EzDDkK2v5xWF6MiGFlvhpFLcD2Dq2pml14gaF67eQkmd8gulDoC4kSOu6KVpkvlUJg1RTbWISU40RdBUUS_9XfRZ2dwxm_SW8LYFISgm_MnlDQ6M9P1gbKEc4X-2pH_FvJCkCqm9pbVjD6LrwdLeOrDWfOaqc8Wh9BE85oNKxkNQ6o4yGRy_Eae0G_G8tZv81d3bHDB23WOdisohVr3nh_j6lbSjbNaLRTc8UgtPbAU1J_tygOfZX9DWEJeHDvYx-qmSi5FgNLPZwHrHcUsncGQ5-skhUclpE5fo4ounpFauYrUbkU6ccfnxMvitwag4IyerhTxj8In_Oj1bDO4pQru674loYrGlULHLEGCjwJJ8gDoVZR8MxO4BT3IzRvIcAQKezC6xpziGnTyImrfEGyJI_OcKfgtxIvnTqFEMS17L9Z-jsARN5FmTheP7HtSdtOMT0B4GY2FYHXxgQmMtj2bRqiLFGapiVe1_QVKDrkqXcm83aFEXnMYCZ-xlyHy > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> : > > > > > > >> >> >> [image: image.png] > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> -ej > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 8:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> >> >> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >>> Hi All, > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >>> Heads up: The current state of PR [4115] looks pretty > > solid > > > > to > > > > > > me. > > > > > > >> I > > > > > > >> >> >>> believe this PR is approaching a mergeable condition. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >>> Please post your reviews if you have any comments. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >>> [4115] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4115 > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >>> Thanks, > > > > > > >> >> >>> Dmitri. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 3:29 PM Anand Kumar Sankaran via > > > dev < > > > > > > >> >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Hi Yufei and Dmitri, > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Here is a proposal for the REST endpoints for metrics > > and > > > > > > events. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3924/changes > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > I did not see any precursors for raising a PR for > > > > proposals, > > > > > so > > > > > > >> >> trying > > > > > > >> >> >>> > this. Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > - > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Anand > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > From: Anand Kumar Sankaran < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 at 10:25 AM > > > > > > >> >> >>> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Polaris Telemetry and Audit Trail > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > About the REST API, based on my use cases: > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > 1. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > I want to be able to query commit metrics to track > > files > > > > > added > > > > > > / > > > > > > >> >> >>> removed > > > > > > >> >> >>> > per commit, along with record counts. The ingestion > > > > pipeline > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> >> >>> writes > > > > > > >> >> >>> > this data is owned by us and we are guaranteed to > write > > > > this > > > > > > >> >> >>> information > > > > > > >> >> >>> > for each write. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > 2. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > I want to be able to query scan metrics for read. I > > > > > understand > > > > > > >> >> clients > > > > > > >> >> >>> do > > > > > > >> >> >>> > not fulfill this requirement. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > 3. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > I want to be able to query the events table (events > are > > > > > > >> persisted) - > > > > > > >> >> >>> this > > > > > > >> >> >>> > may supersede #2, I am not sure yet. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > All this information is in the JDBC based persistence > > > model > > > > > and > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >> >> >>> > persisted in the metastore. I currently don’t have a > > need > > > > to > > > > > > >> query > > > > > > >> >> >>> > prometheus or open telemetry. I do publish some > events > > to > > > > > > >> Prometheus > > > > > > >> >> >>> and > > > > > > >> >> >>> > they are forwarded to our dashboards elsewhere. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > About the CLI utilities, I meant the admin user > > > utilities. > > > > In > > > > > > >> one of > > > > > > >> >> >>> the > > > > > > >> >> >>> > earliest drafts of my proposal, Prashant mentioned > that > > > the > > > > > > >> metrics > > > > > > >> >> >>> tables > > > > > > >> >> >>> > can grow indefinitely and that a similar problem > exists > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> >> events > > > > > > >> >> >>> > table as well. We discussed that cleaning up of old > > > records > > > > > > from > > > > > > >> >> both > > > > > > >> >> >>> > metrics tables and events tables can be done via a > CLI > > > > > utility. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > I see that Yufei has covered the discussion about > > > > > datasources. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > - > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Anand > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > From: Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Date: Friday, February 27, 2026 at 9:54 PM > > > > > > >> >> >>> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Polaris Telemetry and Audit Trail > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > This Message Is From an External Sender > > > > > > >> >> >>> > This message came from outside your organization. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Report Suspicious< > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/Iz9xO38YGHZK!YhNDZABkHi1B699ote2uMwpOZw8i0QMCGO2Szc-HshuABGhGvwPJcymE6G2oUUxtS8xDkSrtGTPm_I3QnVDHoLMk50m9v8z_nZKTkd-bnVUbreF1u0WnfV_X5eYevZl_$ > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > As I mentioned in > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3890__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!5EuyFFkk3vhRWVIRvQAWBSQfpJkTMA9HxugzDwXmN0LPPqhEFxYkFRGVhtb8AqUwXtDh2OplcMnbMDHKOxrvDU0$ > > > > > > >> >> >>> , > > > > > > >> >> >>> > supporting > > > > > > >> >> >>> > multiple data sources is not a trivial change. I > would > > > > > strongly > > > > > > >> >> >>> recommend > > > > > > >> >> >>> > starting with a design document to carefully evaluate > > the > > > > > > >> >> architectural > > > > > > >> >> >>> > implications and long term impact. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > A REST endpoint to query metrics seems reasonable > given > > > the > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > >> >> >>> JDBC > > > > > > >> >> >>> > based persistence model. That said, we may also > > consider > > > > > > >> alternative > > > > > > >> >> >>> > storage models. For example, if we later adopt a time > > > > series > > > > > > >> system > > > > > > >> >> >>> such as > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Prometheus to store metrics, the query model and > access > > > > > > patterns > > > > > > >> >> would > > > > > > >> >> >>> be > > > > > > >> >> >>> > fundamentally different. Designing the REST API > without > > > > > > >> considering > > > > > > >> >> >>> these > > > > > > >> >> >>> > potential evolutions may limit flexibility. I'd > suggest > > > to > > > > > > start > > > > > > >> >> with > > > > > > >> >> >>> the > > > > > > >> >> >>> > use case. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > Yufei > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 3:42 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > > > > > > >> >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> >> >>> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Hi Anand, > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Sharing my view... subject to discussion: > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > 1. Adding non-IRC REST API to Polaris is perfectly > > > fine. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Figuring out specific endpoint URIs and payloads > > might > > > > > > require > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > >> >> few > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > roundtrips, so opening a separate thread for that > > might > > > > be > > > > > > >> best. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Contributors commonly create Google Docs for new > API > > > > > > proposals > > > > > > >> too > > > > > > >> >> >>> (they > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > fairly easy to update as the email discussion > > > > progresses). > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > There was a suggestion to try Markdown (with PRs) > for > > > > > > proposals > > > > > > >> >> [1] > > > > > > >> >> >>> ... > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > feel free to give it a try if you are comfortable > > with > > > > > that. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > 2. Could you clarify whether you mean end user > > > utilities > > > > or > > > > > > >> admin > > > > > > >> >> >>> user > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > utilities? In the latter case those might be more > > > > suitable > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> >> >>> Admin > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > CLI (java) not the Python CLI, IMHO. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Why would these utilities be common with events? > > IMHO, > > > > > event > > > > > > >> use > > > > > > >> >> >>> cases > > > > > > >> >> >>> > are > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > distinct from scan/commit metrics. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > 3. I'd prefer separating metrics persistence from > > > > MetaStore > > > > > > >> >> >>> persistence > > > > > > >> >> >>> > at > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > the code level, so that they could be mixed and > > matched > > > > > > >> >> >>> independently. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > The > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > separate datasource question will become a > non-issue > > > with > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> >> >>> approach, > > > > > > >> >> >>> > I > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > guess. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > The rationale for separating scan metrics and > > metastore > > > > > > >> >> persistence > > > > > > >> >> >>> is > > > > > > >> >> >>> > that > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > "cascading deletes" between them are hardly ever > > > > required. > > > > > > >> >> >>> Furthermore, > > > > > > >> >> >>> > the > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > data and query patterns are very different so > > different > > > > > > >> >> technologies > > > > > > >> >> >>> > might > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > be beneficial in each case. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > [1] > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/yto2wp982t43h1mqjwnslswhws5z47cy__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!5EuyFFkk3vhRWVIRvQAWBSQfpJkTMA9HxugzDwXmN0LPPqhEFxYkFRGVhtb8AqUwXtDh2OplcMnbMDHKxYDakNU$ > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Cheers, > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > Dmitri. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 6:19 PM Anand Kumar > Sankaran > > > via > > > > > dev > > > > > > < > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Thanks all. This PR is merged now. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Here are the follow-up features / work needed. > > These > > > > > were > > > > > > >> all > > > > > > >> >> >>> part of > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > the > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > merged PR at some point in time and were removed > to > > > > > reduce > > > > > > >> >> scope. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > 1. A REST API to paginate through table > metrics. > > > > This > > > > > > >> will be > > > > > > >> >> >>> > non-IRC > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > standard addition. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > 2. Utilities for managing old records, should > be > > > > > common > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> >> >>> events. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > There was some discussion that it belongs to the > > CLI. > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > 3. Separate datasource (metrics, events, even > > > other > > > > > > >> tables?). > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Anything else? > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > - > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > Anand > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > > >> >> >>> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
