Hi I think it's better to use w3c_trace_context (better than two fields).
Regarding x-request-id, I think it's for a different purpose, specifically for persistence. Personally, I think we can achieve the same with span and events. If we want to "distinguish" the two layers, it makes sense to have x-request-id (not sure it's super helpful). Else, I think we can achieve the same with span/event. Just my $0.01 Regards JB On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 10:42 AM Adnan Hemani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > +1 to all of Alex’s AIs with Dmitri’s suggested changes as well. Great find, > Dmitri! > > I’m still debating with myself on whether we need to store the `x-request-id` > field as part of the Events persistence. Can we think of a good use case > where this is more helpful to the user than the OTel Trace/Span IDs? I am > making the assumption here that those are still being returned back to the > client. > > Best, > Adnan Hemani > > > On Oct 24, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Dmitri, > > > > Yes, I think your suggestion to use just one field w3c_trace_context > > makes more sense than two fields (span_id and trace_id). > > > > With that, I also think that we are slowly drifting into > > implementation considerations; let's get consensus on the general > > design first, and we can certainly fine-tune the actual Java methods > > and SQL table columns in the future PR. WDYT? > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 5:14 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Many thanks for the background info, Adnan! > >> > >> +1 to action items proposed by Alex! > >> > >> Re: (3) Can we abstract request/trace info into a separate object without > >> exposing those accessors on the Event class directly? OTel defines > >> trace/span concepts, but in request ID is a bit foreign to OTel. Having > >> tracing / request ID isolated in java could help with maintaining it and > >> potentially supporting other (custom) tracing methods. > >> > >> Re: (4) I'd like to propose storing OTel correlation data in the form of a > >> standard context propagation string, e.g. W3C trace-context [1] (same value > >> as its HTTP header), so the column could be called w3c_trace_context or > >> simply trace_context. > >> > >> Open question: do we need to write a separate, individual trace ID field in > >> SQL? I suppose it is not very useful since correlating it to other trace > >> data already requires understanding OTel context propagation and a query > >> against trace_context can still be made using string-matching clauses. We > >> could probably (additionally) store it in the request_id column if the > >> Polaris-specific request ID header is not set. > >> > >> As for span ID, I do not really see a use case for persisting it > >> individually. It is very specific to OTel trace data construction. > >> > >> Actually, using the W3C trace context [1] encoding probably makes sense in > >> the java event representation too. Interested callers can easily decode > >> this information since the format is well-defined. As a side benefit, this > >> opens opportunities for downstream event consumers to connect (propagate > >> context) to traces that produced events based on the event data itself, > >> without relying on the intermediate frameworks. This may be desirable since > >> the current Polaris event persistence impl. writes events in batches, so > >> the association to individual requests that produced those events is lost. > >> Whether to perform this kind of context propagation will be at the > >> discretion of the event consumer, of course (outside of Polaris code). > >> > >> [1] > >> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.w3.org/TR/trace-context/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw2fn0lRsTx-f9r4PCz8wmJK > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Dmitri. > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 7:18 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Thank you for chiming in; the context around request IDs is now clear. > >>> > >>> Trying to summarize this thread into actionable items, here's what I > >>> propose: > >>> > >>> 1. Restore the original functionality for request IDs. > >>> - Change the default header name back to x-request-id (despite the > >>> x- prefix being deprecated), but keep it configurable as today. > >>> 2. Remove RequestIdGenerator and related functionality. > >>> - Do not generate a request ID if the REST client doesn't provide one. > >>> 3. Update PolarisEvent: > >>> - Expose new requestId(), traceId(), spanId() methods, all nullable. > >>> - This would align with the emerging consensus around including > >>> contextual information in PolarisEvent [1]. > >>> 4. Update events table SQL schema: > >>> - Insert the client-provided request ID into the request_id > >>> column; otherwise, insert null. > >>> - Add two new nullable columns, trace_id and span_id, and populate > >>> them if OTel is enabled. > >>> > >>> From our discussions, I think it's important to not conflate OTel > >>> tracing fields with Envoy tracing fields, which is why I suggest we > >>> use separate fields / columns for them. > >>> > >>> Would the above plan work for everyone? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Alex > >>> > >>> [1]: > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lists.apache.org/thread/rl5cpcft16sn5n00mfkmx9ldn3gsqtfy&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw02wPvb0qxRzYAKEP0h8l9T > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 9:33 AM Adnan Hemani > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks to Alex for starting this thread - because of this, I’m just > >>> coming to the realization that OTel Trace and Span IDs are coming built-in > >>> with Quarkus and my previous work to generate a Request/Correlation ID is > >>> likely not needed as a result. My original motivation for generation of a > >>> Request/Correlation ID was to ensure that any client can uniquely identify > >>> a request made to Polaris, which would be especially useful for debugging > >>> failing requests or identifying call patterns. > >>>> > >>>> As a result, I’m a +1 on Michael’s opinion: we should remove the > >>> Request/Correlation ID generation and always use the OTel trace/span IDs > >>> (which come for free with Quarkus) instead for the Correlation ID unless a > >>> valid header is present, which would take over as the Correlation ID > >>> instead. > >>>> > >>>> — > >>>> > >>>> To answer Dmitri’s question re Polaris Events: The intended use case is > >>> to provide some sort of correlation between events that have occurred as > >>> part of the same request. For example, if a user makes an > >>> CommitTransaction > >>> request, it would be helpful to see all UpdateTable calls that were made > >>> as > >>> part of that one user request. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Adnan Hemani > >>>> > >>>>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 12:15 PM, Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Michael, > >>>>> > >>>>> Logging x-request-id headers makes sense. > >>>>> > >>>>> Just to confirm: if / when we restore that, Polaris will NOT generate > >>> new > >>>>> IDs in case the header is not present in the request, correct? > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe x-request-id can co-exist with OTel. > >>>>> > >>>>> What about adding request IDs to events [1][2]? What's the intended use > >>>>> case for that? Could you share some context here too? > >>>>> > >>>>> Side note: I proposed [2877] flagging event persistence as "beta" in > >>>>> 1.2.0... This discussion adds another point towards that, I think. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > >>>>> > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/2f0c7a43d446452004ea51196b618de9bdf0e25b/runtime/service/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/service/events/listeners/inmemory/InMemoryBufferEventListener.java%2523L97%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw1WfUaXLp6z_M87iAXEqSUw&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw1Pioys4ROm8vYM_mdx4ygH > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/19742cc20f4bc0b7e5a315a62f89c6085ad81b7d/runtime/service/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/service/events/listeners/PolarisPersistenceEventListener.java%2523L66%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw12-7e3ahm2sLSkLSNqTecm&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw1PGW6uFwtUN8F1dOlJwrpm > >>>>> > >>>>> [2877] > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2877%2523discussion_r2456300613%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw3TuYbkzwnLx3QEVIM8oDda&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw2Tfk7wAM1MaB5z9Dvw5X5H > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Dmitri. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:23 PM Michael Collado < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hey Dmitri > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The generating a request id is new code that was added after the > >>> original > >>>>>> x-request-id support. You can see the state from ~1 year ago, we > >>> hard-coded > >>>>>> request_id as the header we used for the MDC - > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://github.com/apache/polaris/blob/a6197bd7d8cb5551253fa427e4373897205ecece/polaris-service/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/service/PolarisApplication.java%2523L415-L416%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw35Q1A_2avAiSYlYVAnZxBb&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw34DksOw7DSHJu8PfQQ5bT6 > >>>>>> . At some point, it was changed to be configurable, then the > >>>>>> ContextResolverFilter filter was refactored/eliminated and the > >>>>>> RequestIdFilter took its responsibility, but lost some of its original > >>>>>> functionality. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My personal opinion is that restoring support for the x-request-id > >>> header > >>>>>> is something that we should do, but if the header isn't present, > >>> falling > >>>>>> back on simply using OTel trace ids is good enough (better, even) than > >>>>>> generating another random request id. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 10:47 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Michael, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for the info! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Working with Envoy's tracing headers makes sense to me. However, I > >>>>>> wonder: > >>>>>>> why would Polaris need to generate a new request ID inside its > >>> code?.. > >>>>>>> and return it in response headers? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How important is it to propagate this ID to Polaris Events? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm just trying to understand the full context :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Dmitri. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:29 PM Michael Collado < > >>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think the original intention for this requestId field was to > >>> support > >>>>>>>> request propagation from load balancers, like Envoy ( > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.envoyproxy.io/docs/envoy/latest/intro/arch_overview/observability/tracing%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw1RnuM8mViV-j7jvuxq74Aw&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw3LNqtilZ2OoJfE7yEwraZa > >>>>>>>> ), which is distinct from OTEL. Don't ask me why the default > >>>>>>>> is Polaris-Request-Id - I think it was originally a custom thing, > >>> but > >>>>>>> then > >>>>>>>> we changed to integrate with existing conventions. Unfortunately, > >>>>>> looking > >>>>>>>> through the code, I think that the actual functional plumbing has > >>> been > >>>>>>> lost > >>>>>>>> in the course of multiple refactors around the call context and > >>>>>>> resolver. I > >>>>>>>> don't see references to that property or the underlying header. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Support for the unofficial x-request-id header feels like something > >>> we > >>>>>>>> should definitely keep, especially when Polaris is one service in a > >>>>>> mesh > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> services that maybe don't have OTel integration. I'm a fan of the > >>> OTel > >>>>>>>> standard, but it's not entirely ubiquitous and there are many > >>>>>> middleware > >>>>>>>> layers that know how to forward on the x-request-id header. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Mike > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 3:00 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, we should aim for interoperability with the existing de-facto > >>>>>>>>> standard OTel and make it easy for users to integrate into their > >>>>>>>>> observability platforms. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 7:05 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > >>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex and All, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I certainly support the idea of following OTel standards for > >>>>>>> achieving > >>>>>>>>>> "correlation" wrt Polaris requests and/or events. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As to what form the correlation data should take, I believe it is > >>>>>>>>>> conceptually what the OTel "context" represents. So, I believe it > >>>>>>> makes > >>>>>>>>>> sense for Polaris to support standard context propagators at the > >>>>>> API > >>>>>>>>> layer. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If the incoming request has OTel context information, then > >>>>>> returning > >>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>>> other "correlation" data in the response is redundant, I think. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If the incoming request does not have OTel context info, what is > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> purpose of generating a Polaris-specific "correlation ID"? How is > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>> envisioned to be used? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If the intention is to correlate a Polaris response (operation) > >>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>> events > >>>>>>>>>> that might have resulted from its execution, I believe a more > >>>>>> robust > >>>>>>>>>> approach would be to propagate the OTel trace info (starting a new > >>>>>>>> trace > >>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>> necessary) into event data. Then, Polaris can also return the > >>> trace > >>>>>>>>> context > >>>>>>>>>> in the API response (top span). It's a bit awkward from the OTel > >>>>>>>>>> perspective, but might be an option for supporting custom > >>>>>>> correlators. > >>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>> could be covered by a feature flag. The header name could be > >>>>>>>>>> "polaris-traceparent" for W3C Trace Context. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Custom correlation code will be able to extract the trace ID from > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> response and from events and find related data. Granted, it will > >>>>>>>> require > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> bit more effort for the custom code to decode trace IDs from the > >>>>>> OTel > >>>>>>>>>> context, but the format is standard and not complex. The benefit > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>> Polaris, though, is that it can easily integrate with > >>>>>> OTel-compatible > >>>>>>>>>> observability platforms regardless of whether any particular > >>>>>>> deployment > >>>>>>>>>> uses custom correlators or not. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> WDYT? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>> Dmitri. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:03 AM Alexandre Dutra < > >>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Today, Polaris has the notion of "request ID", but its purpose is > >>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>> entirely clear. It seems to serve as an observability feature to > >>>>>>>>>>> facilitate correlation. A pending PR aims to rename it to > >>>>>>>> "correlation > >>>>>>>>>>> ID" for better alignment with industry standards [1]. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> However, this PR has brought to light overlaps with core > >>>>>> telemetry > >>>>>>>>>>> features: when OpenTelemetry (OTel) is enabled in Polaris, each > >>>>>>>>>>> request already has a trace ID and span ID, making a separate > >>>>>>>>>>> correlation ID redundant. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, using the OTel trace ID and span ID in Polaris events, > >>>>>>>>>>> rather than the generated correlation ID, would significantly > >>>>>>>> simplify > >>>>>>>>>>> correlation of events with other traces. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I propose the following changes: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. If OTel is enabled, use the trace ID and span ID as the > >>>>>>>> correlation > >>>>>>>>>>> ID for the request, instead of generating a random correlation > >>>>>> ID. > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Otherwise, if a (Polaris-specific) correlation ID header is > >>>>>>>> present > >>>>>>>>>>> in the request, use it. > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. If neither of the above conditions is met, generate a random > >>>>>>>>>>> correlation ID. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I am somewhat undecided on the best approach when a correlation > >>>>>> ID > >>>>>>>>>>> header is present in the request. However, I believe it would be > >>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>> sensible to disregard it if OTel is enabled, as OTel offers a > >>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>> robust solution for client-to-server trace propagation, e.g. W3C > >>>>>>>> Trace > >>>>>>>>>>> Context propagation [2]. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>> Alex > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [1]: > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2757%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw1-kAWfEk4tmsEg0q0GZBCn&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw1Oe-25vtt4gLVSMFMtSVNg > >>>>>>>>>>> [2]: > >>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.w3.org/TR/trace-context%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1761851831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw22nMyOS7pbJ69XrBo5kHQS&source=gmail-imap&ust=1761927167000000&usg=AOvVaw1TRdkzABc_7U-_KZ1MZ59v > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> >
