fix(batch-exports): Only read person properties for S3 #18095
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
daibhin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2023
Co-authored-by: github-actions <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Justicea83
pushed a commit
to Justicea83/posthog
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2023
Co-authored-by: github-actions <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
Only S3 exports deal with
person_properties; all other destinations do not include this field in their schemas. It can be quite the heavy field, so let's not read it to avoid heavy queries. It may even be droppable from S3, but starting with the safe ones that do not require it.Changes
Only read
person_propertiesifuse_s3_fieldsis set toTrue, which is only done ins3_batch_export.py. It's a bit rough solution, ideally we would have all fields be configurable and then each destination sets it's own. But this is just to fix an issue, and we can develop it further later.👉 Stay up-to-date with PostHog coding conventions for a smoother review.
How did you test this code?
Nothing should change for any destination.