On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 08:58:05AM +0100, William Dauchy wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 3:10 PM William Dauchy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But in addition, it only uses the field for prometheus and not > > > for the rest of the stats, making a special case in the stats for > > > prometheus, which I don't like much. > > > So given that the version and release dates were already present there, > > > why not just add a new compiler_version field, fill it with the missing > > > info so that the consumer has all 3 info available ? > > > > I understand your comment; however from prometheus point of view, it > > is not so nice: > > My patch was producing something like: > > > > # HELP haproxy_process_build_info HAProxy build info. > > # TYPE haproxy_process_build_info gauge > > haproxy_process_build_info{version="2.4-dev4-7a58a2-1",releasedate="2020/12/22",gccversion="10.2.1 > > 20201207"} 1 > > > > And you propose to have: > > haproxy_process_version{version="2.4-dev4-7a58a2-1"} 1 > > haproxy_process_relase_date{releasedate="2020/12/22"} 1 > > haproxy_process_compiler_version{gccversion="10.2.1 20201207"} 1 > > > > I understand it creates two different ways to handle that information > > but from a prometheus point of view, this is not the recommended way > > to do those things. With our current implementation there is no easy > > way to gather those 3 values within a single metric. > > What do we conclude here? Christopher, any thoughts about it?
Just a suggestion, couldn't we have the prometheus exporter simply build these elements by assembling them together ? We could possibly special-case a few entries (especially for the info part) but we should definitely avoid doing this too often, otherwise it will make it impossible to make prometheus users benefit from regular additions to the stats and we'll be back to the situation we used to be in a long time ago with the HTML stats page. Note, if what is needed is just to add multiple fields (e.g. an extra aggregate version field in the same spirit as /proc/version), that's certainly fine. I doubt anyone cares about the compiler version alone anyway, so we could have a "build_version" or whatever with the full string in the format you suggest. Just my two cents, Willy
