obelix74 commented on PR #3414: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3414#issuecomment-3739845278
> Hi @obelix74 thanks for providing support for trace ids! > > I have a question: should we also include the request ID? > > This aligns with an earlier, extensive discussion (back in October) regarding which information to include in events (OTel context vs. request IDs). The general agreement was to include request IDs when available. > > Reference link: https://lists.apache.org/thread/p9357rcy3d1j94w4yogtdwcf2kxzg3jr > > As noted in that thread: > > > Request ID should remain the canonical identifier for every request handled by Polaris. [...] OTel context is OPTIONAL." > > I think it would be good to apply the same decisions for AWS STS session tags, wdyt? Hi Alex In an earlier PR https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3327/changes/BASE..11f4c58ce6f24284553e73887bd8d0d2991244ff, I had included the `request_id`. I had run into a few issues and based on @singhpk234 's advise, removed it from that PR. 1. I couldn't figure out a reliable way to obtain the `request_id` - I was using the `RESTContext` but @dimas-b pointed out that won't work for API calls. I then replaced it with `SLF4J`'s `MDC` - but that felt hacky. 2. My understanding is that Polaris generates a new `request_id` per incoming call, whereas the `trace_id` is more "atomic" and ensures that if a single atomic operation results in multiple REST calls, all get the same ID. Based on these two issues, we had removed `request_id` from that pull request. Perhaps, this is a good time to add it back. What are your thoughts? Also, any guidance on a reliable way to obtain the `request_id` would be helpful. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
