Define profiling.instrumentation.source Log Message Attribute #337
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…cted a given callstack.
Kielek
requested changes
Feb 21, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needed to handle 2 things:
- What if lack of the attribute: Define
profiling.instrumentation.sourceLog Message Attribute #336 (comment) - Future consideration about OTLP protocol: Define
profiling.instrumentation.sourceLog Message Attribute #336 (comment)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The profiling backend ingestion process needs to be able to distinguish between callstacks collected by the existing continuous "Always On" profiler and those collected by the upcoming trace snapshot profiler. This PR defines an attribute to be included in a log message body that will identify which profiling process was responsible for collecting and reporting the exported callstacks.
See #336 for previous discussion.