id,node_id,number,title,user,state,locked,assignee,milestone,comments,created_at,updated_at,closed_at,author_association,pull_request,body,repo,type,active_lock_reason,performed_via_github_app,reactions,draft,state_reason 1426379903,PR_kwDOBm6k_c5BtJNn,1870,"don't use immutable=1, only mode=ro",536941,open,0,,,7,2022-10-27T23:33:04Z,2023-10-03T19:12:37Z,,CONTRIBUTOR,simonw/datasette/pulls/1870,"Opening db files in immutable mode sometimes leads to the file being mutated, which causes duplication in the docker image layers: see #1836, #1480 That this happens in ""immutable"" mode is surprising, because the sqlite docs say that setting this should open the database as read only. https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/open.html > immutable: The immutable parameter is a boolean query parameter that indicates that the database file is stored on read-only media. When immutable is set, SQLite assumes that the database file cannot be changed, even by a process with higher privilege, and so the database is opened read-only and all locking and change detection is disabled. Caution: Setting the immutable property on a database file that does in fact change can result in incorrect query results and/or [SQLITE_CORRUPT](https://www.sqlite.org/rescode.html#corrupt) errors. See also: [SQLITE_IOCAP_IMMUTABLE](https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/c_iocap_atomic.html). Perhaps this is a bug in sqlite? ---- :books: Documentation preview :books:: https://datasette--1870.org.readthedocs.build/en/1870/ ",107914493,pull,,,"{""url"": ""https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1870/reactions"", ""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",0, 1426080014,I_kwDOBm6k_c5VAEEO,1867,/db/table/-/rename API (also allows atomic replace),9599,open,0,,8755003,1,2022-10-27T18:13:23Z,2023-01-09T15:34:12Z,,OWNER,,"> There's one catch with batched inserts: if your CLI tool fails half way through you could end up with a partially populated table - since a bunch of batches will have succeeded first. > > ... > > If people care about that kind of thing they could always push all of their inserts to a table called `_tablename` and then atomically rename that once they've uploaded all of the data (assuming I provide an atomic-rename-this-table mechanism). _Originally posted by @simonw in https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1866#issuecomment-1293893789_ ",107914493,issue,,,"{""url"": ""https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1867/reactions"", ""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",, 1424980545,I_kwDOBm6k_c5U73pB,1861,"request.headers.get(""Content-Type"") fails",9599,open,0,,,0,2022-10-27T03:39:12Z,2022-10-27T03:39:12Z,,OWNER,,"Turns out this is case-sensitive, needs to be: request.headers.get(""content-type"") != ""application/json"" That's not great usability. It should be case insensitive.",107914493,issue,,,"{""url"": ""https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1861/reactions"", ""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,