Skip to content
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

ccl/backupccl: add application name to backup/restore telemetry #87875

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 20, 2022

Conversation

rhu713
Copy link
Contributor

@rhu713 rhu713 commented Sep 12, 2022

Add application name as a field in RecoveryEvent. Record the session application name for every invoked backup, restore, and backup schedule creation.

@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@rhu713 rhu713 marked this pull request as ready for review September 13, 2022 17:54
@rhu713 rhu713 requested a review from a team September 13, 2022 17:54
@rhu713 rhu713 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 13, 2022 17:54
@rhu713 rhu713 requested review from a team, msbutler and livlobo September 13, 2022 17:54
Copy link
Contributor

@adityamaru adityamaru left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, I assume app name is nonsensitive since events.proto already had it marked as so.

Add application name as a field in RecoveryEvent. Record the session
application name for every invoked backup, restore, and backup schedule
creation.

Release note: None
@dt
Copy link
Member

dt commented Sep 14, 2022

Is it? We went to great lengths to scrub the app name in sql stats (we added cluster.secret and a migration to populate it with a random nonce all so that we could hash that into the app name to make it irreversible in telemetry)

@rhu713
Copy link
Contributor Author

rhu713 commented Sep 14, 2022

I assumed so after looking for this PR that changed the sensitivity to unredacted: #82742

@dt
Copy link
Member

dt commented Sep 14, 2022

Ah, I guess @dhartunian and SQL people concluded it isn't sensitive. Carry on then.

@rhu713
Copy link
Contributor Author

rhu713 commented Sep 14, 2022

bors r+

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Sep 14, 2022

Build failed:

@rhu713
Copy link
Contributor Author

rhu713 commented Sep 20, 2022

bors retry

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Sep 20, 2022

Build failed (retrying...):

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Sep 20, 2022

Build succeeded:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants