That actually sounds interesting to me! I have few questions though: - why not moving to the official generated code? It seems it's the only stable one on the long term - Is there a benchmark that I could run for prometheus using different plugins? - How can I test if my code changes didn't break the project? go test ./... ? - Are there some platform specific tests?
Hope we can work on that On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:42:21 PM UTC+8 Bjoern Rabenstein wrote: > On 05.10.23 17:48, Clément Jean wrote: > > I'm not entirely sure yet because I'm new to contributing to prometheus. > If > > there is any use cases that you guys already discussed around Protobuf, > I'd > > be happy to help. > > If you are really deep into protobuf, there is definitely one big and > fat issue to solve: We are still using gogo-protobuf in > prometheus/prometheus, which has good performance properties, but is > unmaintained. The plan has been for a while to migrate to another > protobuf implementation that performs similarly well. Here is the > discussion on this mailing list: > > https://groups.google.com/g/prometheus-developers/c/uFWRyqZaQis/m/1OOGT7s5AwAJ > > And here is a branch that contains a PoC of migrating to the vitess > protoc plugin: > https://github.com/austince/prometheus/tree/feat/drop-gogo > (Note that it is more than two years old, and I'm not sure if the > vitess plugin performs well enough. But it could be a starting point.) > > -- > Björn Rabenstein > [PGP-ID] 0x851C3DA17D748D03 > [email] [email protected] > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/fbd81c3a-182b-4d05-984f-fdc702d4b809n%40googlegroups.com.
