Open GregMefford opened 5 years ago
main difficulty with it is that it's introducing a breaking change for those who're using them , so it will have to be in the next major release I guess. Otherwise I agree with the change. Let's keep it that PR around
Actually I think the way this PR is currently written, it should be a bugfix instead of a breaking change, right? The code currently uses the queue_count
name when it updates the histogram:
It just never declares that metric because it declares it as queue_counter
. I think this means that the metric already won't show up in metrics systems where you need to pre-declare your metrics before using them. So the only breaking change is that it won't declare the queue_counter
metric, which is never actually populated with data anyway.
@GregMefford @benoitc Wouldn't changing the update statement to queue_counter
be more appropriate rather than renaming the metric itself? In that case it won't be a breaking change, the queue_counter
histogram will actually work and you can change it to queue_count
in the next major release if you find the name more appropriate.
I might be misunderstanding something, but it looks like in the code I linked above, it already is sending the metric updates as queue_count
, it just incorrectly declares the metric as queue_counter
.
@GregMefford yeah, sorry, for some reason I thought the opposite was done. I also think you are right and don't see how this could be a breaking change. Surely no one is relying on an empty histogram, right?
It looks like the code was actually populating metrics under the
queue_count
name, but declaring the histogram asqueue_counter
. I didn't actually test that this fixes it, but wanted to get a PR opened to see whether this is the name to use or not. It seems like this would be more consistent with the other metric names.