issue_comments: 1696709110
This data as json
| html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/2162#issuecomment-1696709110 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/2162 | 1696709110 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5lIbn2 | 9599 | 2023-08-29T03:20:40Z | 2023-08-29T03:22:47Z | OWNER | > However, one important notes about those new `core_` tables: If a `--internal` DB is passed in, that means those `core_` tables will persist across multiple Datasette instances. This wasn't the case before, since `_internal` was always an in-memory database created from scratch. I'm completely happy for the `core_*` tables (or `datasette_*` or some other name) to live in the persisted-to-disk `internal.db` database, even though they're effectively meant to be an in-memory cache. I don't think it causes any harm, and it could even be quite useful to have them visible on disk - other applications could read the `internal.db` database while Datasette itself is running, should they have some weird reason to want to do that! Having those tables stick around in `internal.db` after Datasette shuts down could be useful for other debugging activities as well. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | 1870672704 |