Open jerry-shao opened 1 month ago
cc @open-telemetry/semconv-db-approvers
@jerry-shao thank you for reporting this!
Could you please share some details:
db.user
?Thanks!
Discussed in June 19 SIG meeting.
Initially I thought we might use user.name
, but this seems like it could lead to confusion about which user it's referring to when you see it on a database span (the end user or the database user).
We are thinking it likely makes sense to embed the user.name
attribute under the db.*
namespace in order to be able to support both on the same span.
I've added the topic to the next general semantic convention SIG meeting.
Note: if we do bring it back as db.user.name
, we probably will keep it experimental in the initial stability since user.*
namespace itself is still experimental.
Also: #1172
It's common to access databases (in the cloud, in k8s with identity providers, etc) using non-human identities which can be called groups, roles, etc. Or with named/unnamed tokens.
It'd be difficult to describe all possible kinds of identities using user
namespace:
user.name
? It'd be confusing to have user.roles[]
as well.user
for DynamoDB or ComsosDB? It seems a new version of db.user
should capture the identity used to authenticate on the database we need semantic conventions for identity in order to achieve it.
Area(s)
area:db
Is your change request related to a problem? Please describe.
Today, there is a db.user field under db namespace. However, a recent change proposed to mark the db.user as deprecated and add it back later once nested namespace is supported.
Describe the solution you'd like
Given db.user is currently being used by customers/venders, we would like to use this issue for tracking purpose to make sure db.user won't be removed without a replacement.
Describe alternatives you've considered
No response
Additional context
No response