Describe your proposal here.
content/shared/v3-line-protocol.md is titled and scoped as a syntax reference: table, tag set, field set, timestamp, data types. #7682 and #7692 added write-execution semantics to the same page: duplicate-point overwrite resolution, compactor/snapshot timing, multi-ingest-node routing, and product-specific delay recommendations. That content depends on the storage engine, not the protocol — a valid line protocol point is the same string regardless of when or whether an overwrite resolves deterministically.
Putting execution semantics into the syntax reference forced three-way show-in/hide-in branching (distributed vs. Enterprise vs. Core, plus a fourth Cloud case) to compensate for what's really a per-product routing problem, not a syntax difference. Follow-on fixes in #7692 (cross-links, cloud scope, wording) had to patch each branch separately, and the same maintenance cost will recur on the next storage-engine change.
Proposal
Move overwrite-timing/duplicate-point-resolution content out of the line protocol syntax reference and into a write-data or data-model doc per product (or a shared write-data doc, if the same show-in pattern still applies there — TBD). Leave a single short pointer from the syntax reference to that doc.
Expected effect: most of the show-in branching in the "Duplicate points" section collapses, because the product-specific mechanics live where they're inherently product-specific (write/storage docs), instead of being spliced into shared syntax content that's otherwise product-agnostic.
Non-goals
Relevant URLs
Describe your proposal here.
content/shared/v3-line-protocol.mdis titled and scoped as a syntax reference: table, tag set, field set, timestamp, data types. #7682 and #7692 added write-execution semantics to the same page: duplicate-point overwrite resolution, compactor/snapshot timing, multi-ingest-node routing, and product-specific delay recommendations. That content depends on the storage engine, not the protocol — a valid line protocol point is the same string regardless of when or whether an overwrite resolves deterministically.Putting execution semantics into the syntax reference forced three-way
show-in/hide-inbranching (distributed vs. Enterprise vs. Core, plus a fourth Cloud case) to compensate for what's really a per-product routing problem, not a syntax difference. Follow-on fixes in #7692 (cross-links, cloud scope, wording) had to patch each branch separately, and the same maintenance cost will recur on the next storage-engine change.Proposal
Move overwrite-timing/duplicate-point-resolution content out of the line protocol syntax reference and into a write-data or data-model doc per product (or a shared
write-datadoc, if the sameshow-inpattern still applies there — TBD). Leave a single short pointer from the syntax reference to that doc.Expected effect: most of the
show-inbranching in the "Duplicate points" section collapses, because the product-specific mechanics live where they're inherently product-specific (write/storage docs), instead of being spliced into shared syntax content that's otherwise product-agnostic.Non-goals
Relevant URLs