Skip to content

Conversation

@ejona86
Copy link
Member

@ejona86 ejona86 commented Dec 5, 2025

No description provided.


### Go

gRPC Go will add a new API to set and get the custom label value in
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@easwars, @dfawley, if you know the spellings of these APIs I can put them in here.


### C++

gRPC C++ will add an API to ClientContext. Precise details TBD.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@markdroth, can you help me flesh this out? It looks like y'all will need specialized APIs/plumbing.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll chat with @ctiller after the holidays to flesh this out, and I'll get back to you.

@ejona86
Copy link
Member Author

ejona86 commented Dec 16, 2025

CC @ctiller

Copy link
Member

@markdroth markdroth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall, this looks good! I just want to chat with @ctiller before approving, just to make sure we've dotted our I's and crossed our T's.

* `grpc.client.call.retry_delay`
* Other per-call instruments, e.g., those added by an LB policy, are encouraged
to support this label
* RLS is the only such case today, but is not defined in a gRFC
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd suggest just removing this bullet, since it isn't actually a public API. If we want this label on these metrics, we can figure that out internally.


### C++

gRPC C++ will add an API to ClientContext. Precise details TBD.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll chat with @ctiller after the holidays to flesh this out, and I'll get back to you.


## Rationale

A single label is restrictive. We could allow applications to have multiple
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Might also want to mention that supporting an arbitrary set of key/value pairs would likely impose some performance constraints that we'd prefer to avoid.

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.

2 participants