New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Better guidance on semantic conventions for database client call span names in case of missing information #704
Comments
The specification already states:
Is this a viable option here? Just write "postgresql" for the span name here. While (for use abilities sake) I'd suggest perhaps trying to find a way (without parsing) to pull in additional information, perhaps via passing data when it is available in |
@open-telemetry/technical-committee can you move this to https://github.com/open-telemetry/semantic-conventions? |
Looking back at where this language was introduced (open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#575), I think "tech-specific database name" meant:
which were alternatives to Recommending falling back to |
What are you trying to achieve?
When tracing an activity from Npgsql (.NET Database provider for PostgreSQL) we want to set a valid span name according to the semantic conventions for database client calls without having to parse the database statement on the client side and without having to guess (or rather infer from our knowledge on the current default behavior of PostgreSQL) information that we don't have when issuing a database client call.
What did you expect to see?
Guidance on creating a valid span name in cases where all three of
db.operation
,db.name
anddb.sql.table
are not available to the database client.Per discussion following npgsql/npgsql#4757 (comment) we think that it is probably pretty safe to infer the database name from our knowledge on PostgreSQL's default behavior but we may still want to research/discuss what good alternatives could be.
Additional context.
https://opentelemetry.io/docs/reference/specification/trace/semantic_conventions/database/
npgsql/npgsql#4757 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: