Hi All, >From my POV the use cases for x-request-id and OTel are slightly different. OTel is an observability use case where cross-linking of various pieces of data is desired but not required in all cases (data loss is acceptable). The x-request-id use case appears to have some very specific custom applications without any obvious relationship to OTel.
Given the current state of this discussion, I think it makes sense to handle and persist them separately. However, if we intend x-request-id to act as an observability aid alternative to OTel, then it might be preferable to have a config flag indicating which one of them should be added to persistent event data. In that case we should reuse the same column for them (and possibly add a "type" prefix, e.g. "x-request-id:ABCDEF" or "traceparent:00-12345...") WDYT? Thanks, Dmitri. On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 9:38 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yufei, > > > I’d suggest persisting a single opaque correlation ID instead > > The problem I see with this is that readers cannot know the syntax of > the opaque id, and will have to "probe" using some heuristics, e.g. if > the id matches the OTel trace context syntax, asume it's OTel, > otherwise... assume it's something else. > > That's not unfeasible, but I wonder if it isn't better to store the 2 > ids separately. > > Thanks, > Alex > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 7:14 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks Alex for raising this discussion. Thanks everyone for chiming in. > > The plan looks good to me overall. > > > > > Update PolarisEvent, expose request ID if available, expose OTel > context > > if available. > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2914 persists both request id and > > otel context. > > > > Do we actually need to persist both? > > From the original discussion, the intent of a request ID was to correlate > > multiple events generated by the same request, for example, linking a > > BeforeUpdateTable and an AfterUpdateTable event. In that sense, what we > > really need is a single opaque identifier that ties related events > > together, regardless of whether it comes from a request ID or an OTel > > context. > > > > If we persist both fields (requestId and otelContext), it can lead to > > consumer confusion, since downstream systems would need to decide which > one > > to rely on, potentially causing inconsistent event correlation. Unless > > there are concrete use cases where event consumers need both, I’d suggest > > persisting a single opaque correlation ID instead. This keeps the schema > > simpler and ensures consistent event linking. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 10:08 AM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Here is the PR: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2914 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Alex > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 5:49 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Yeah it looks good to me and I agree we have a consensus. > > > > > > > > Thanks ! > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > Le dim. 26 oct. 2025 à 14:29, Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the good discussion so far. I think we have a broad > > > consensus. > > > > > > > > > > Unless anybody disagrees I am going to move forward with the the > > > > > following revised plan, incorporating the latest feedback: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Restore the original functionality for request IDs, change the > > > > > default header name back to x-request-id > > > > > > > > > > 2. Remove RequestIdGenerator and related functionality. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Update PolarisEvent, expose request ID if available, expose OTel > > > > > context if available. > > > > > > > > > > 4. Update events table SQL schema: insert request ID if available, > > > > > insert OTel context if available. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 11:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
