-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 540
out_es: Add documentation for index record accessor #1163
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Victor Cabezas <[email protected]>
… record accessor support Signed-off-by: Victor Cabezas <[email protected]>
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days. |
|
@esmerel can you review this PR, still waiting on code PR fluent/fluent-bit#7716 where I nudged the code owner and a review? |
Signed-off-by: Lynette Miles <[email protected]>
Fixing changes I accidentally overwrote. Signed-off-by: Lynette Miles <[email protected]>
|
I accidentally overwrote while fixing the conflict and then fixed the changes - @eschabell, there's an example at the end that needs a newer code sample. |
| | `HTTP_API_Key` | API key for authenticating with Elasticsearch. Must be `base64` encoded. If `HTTP_User` or `Cloud_Auth` are defined, this parameter is ignored. | _none_ | | ||
| | `Index` | Index name | `fluent-bit` | | ||
| | `Type` | Type name | `_doc` | | ||
| | `Target_index` | When included: destination index will be rendered using this record accessor syntax. If any field in the record accessor expression is not found in the record, the value of `Index` setting is used. | _none_ | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems different to the equivalent approach taken by the Opensearch output: https://docs.fluentbit.io/manual/data-pipeline/outputs/opensearch
I would expect both to use the same value and that's probably a comment on the implementation side.
No description provided.