-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 76
Update the def value of server.metrics.filter #2422
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
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This PR includes documentation updates Updated pages: |
Test fails with |
@@ -3100,7 +3100,7 @@ a|Specifies which metrics should be enabled by using a comma separated list of g | |||
|Valid values | |||
a|A comma-separated list where each element is A simple globbing pattern that can use `*` and `?`.. | |||
|Default value | |||
m|+++*bolt.connections*,*bolt.messages_received*,*bolt.messages_started*,*dbms.pool.bolt.free,*dbms.pool.bolt.total_size,*dbms.pool.bolt.total_used,*dbms.pool.bolt.used_heap,*cluster.raft.is_leader,*cluster.raft.last_leader_message,*cluster.raft.replication_attempt,*cluster.raft.replication_fail,*cluster.raft.last_applied,*cluster.raft.last_appended,*cluster.raft.append_index,*cluster.raft.commit_index,*cluster.raft.applied_index,*cluster.internal.discovery.memberset.left,*cluster.internal.discovery.crdt.gossip_id_data.size,*cluster.internal.discovery.crdt.server_data.size,*cluster.internal.discovery.crdt.database_data.size,*cluster.internal.discovery.crdt.leader_data.size,*cluster.internal.discovery.crdt.total_merge_operations,*cluster.internal.discovery.crdt.total_update_operations,*cluster.internal.discovery.gossip.incoming_queue_size,*cluster.internal.discovery.gossip.total_received_data,*cluster.internal.discovery.gossip.total_sent_data,*cluster.internal.discovery.gossip.uncontactable_members_exist,*check_point.*,*cypher.replan_events,*cypher.cache*,*ids_in_use*,*.neo4j.count.*,*pool.transaction.*.total_used,*pool.transaction.*.used_heap,*pool.transaction.*.used_native,*store.size*,*transaction.active_read,*transaction.active_write,*transaction.committed*,*transaction.last_committed_tx_id,*transaction.peak_concurrent,*transaction.rollbacks*,*page_cache.hit*,*page_cache.page_faults,*page_cache.usage_ratio,*vm.file.descriptors.count,*vm.gc.time.*,*vm.heap.used,*vm.memory.buffer.direct.used,*vm.memory.pool.g1_eden_space,*vm.memory.pool.g1_old_gen,*vm.pause_time,*vm.thread*,*db.query.execution*,*protocol*+++ label:changed[Changed in 2025.03] | |||
m|+++*bolt.connections*,*bolt.messages_received*,*bolt.messages_started*,*dbms.pool.bolt.free,*dbms.pool.bolt.total_size,*dbms.pool.bolt.total_used,*dbms.pool.bolt.used_heap,*cluster.raft.is_leader,*cluster.raft.last_leader_message,*cluster.raft.replication_attempt,*cluster.raft.replication_fail,*cluster.raft.last_applied,*cluster.raft.last_appended,*cluster.raft.append_index,*cluster.raft.commit_index,*cluster.raft.applied_index,*check_point.*,*cypher.replan_events,*cypher.cache*,*ids_in_use*,*.neo4j.count.*,*pool.transaction.*.total_used,*pool.transaction.*.used_heap,*pool.transaction.*.used_native,*store.size*,*transaction.active_read,*transaction.active_write,*transaction.committed*,*transaction.last_committed_tx_id,*transaction.peak_concurrent,*transaction.rollbacks*,*page_cache.hit*,*page_cache.page_faults,*page_cache.usage_ratio,*vm.file.descriptors.count,*vm.gc.time.*,*vm.heap.used,*vm.memory.buffer.direct.used,*vm.memory.pool.g1_eden_space,*vm.memory.pool.g1_old_gen,*vm.pause_time,*vm.thread*,*db.query.execution*,*protocol*+++ label:changed[Changed in 2025.03, 2025.06] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm wondering if we should to add some clarification here since this value has been modified for the second time in 2025.x series. Should we add a note to specify what exactly has been added or removed?
Also, the original PR in the monorepo is not labeled changelog. Should this change be included in the changelog? If so, the PR 31380 needs to be labeled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, these labels will only grow as we make more metrics visible. Maybe adding a note instead and explaining what has changed would be better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, @NataliaIvakina
No description provided.