You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We rely on the isTopQueriesIndex function when deleting outdated query insights data. And that function only uses index name to decide if it is a query insights index. This is very dangerous and we could be deleting customer data. Think about use cases when:
Customers create an index that can matches the index pattern
We are adding more features in the exporter in the future and changed the isTopQueriesIndex matching and it somhow returns true for non query insights indices. We will be deleting customer data
What solution would you like?
Additional safegard should be added like, adding certain metadata to indicate "this is a query insights data".
What alternatives have you considered?
A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.
Do you have any additional context?
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ansjcy
changed the title
[FEATURE] Enhance the safe gard when deleting top queries records
[FEATURE] Enhance the safegard when deleting top queries records
Jan 24, 2025
Is your feature request related to a problem?
We rely on the
isTopQueriesIndex
function when deleting outdated query insights data. And that function only uses index name to decide if it is a query insights index. This is very dangerous and we could be deleting customer data. Think about use cases when:isTopQueriesIndex
matching and it somhow returns true for non query insights indices. We will be deleting customer dataWhat solution would you like?
Additional safegard should be added like, adding certain metadata to indicate "this is a query insights data".
What alternatives have you considered?
A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.
Do you have any additional context?
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: