Right, that'd be `--clone/--fork` - just copy it to a fresh DB and do what you want. `--clone=new-na

Right, that'd be

--clone/--fork

--clone/--fork

just copy it to a fresh DB and do what you want.
```
--clone=new-name
```
```
--clone=new-name
```

MMatt Silverlock Right, that'd be `--clone/--fork` - just copy it to a fresh DB and do what you w...

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:21 PM

The "lock" action is very intuitive given it's common for many things, but this would be great regardless.

Iitsmatteomanf The "lock" action is very intuitive given it's common for many things, but this ...

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:23 PM

Can you expand on what "lock" means - e.g. no longer accepting writes? At all?

MMatt Silverlock Can you expand on what "lock" means - e.g. no longer accepting writes? At all?

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:24 PM

Let me find you an example.

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:24 PM

Or do you want to say "keep this version forever" (which is... cloning that bookmark to a DB you can keep)

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:25 PM

(Then you end up with several things to manage - you have "regular" databases and then some set of "persistent locked copies" that exist at a meta layer, and charge you for storage)

MMatt Silverlock Or do you want to say "keep this version forever" (which is... cloning that book...

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:25 PM

I meant this yes, I get it's the same, I'd be fine regardless... but it's way easier UX wise, less duplicate things and it's all compressed into one entry.

Iitsmatteomanf I meant this yes, I get it's the same, I'd be fine regardless... but it's way ea...

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:25 PM

See what I wrote above. I don't agree. We're gonna charge you to keep it around "forever", sorry.

MMatt Silverlock See what I wrote above. I don't agree. We're gonna charge you to keep it around ...

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:26 PM

Oh yeah, not expecting you to not charge for that

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:26 PM

Definitely do, everyone does.

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:26 PM

And then if you want to query that "locked" version, is that some special binding? How that does map to just being "another" DB? etc.

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:27 PM

Oh no no, it's not an actually present and accessible db. It'd be a sort of snapshot saved you can revert to or clone out of.

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:27 PM

You could use it to create another db or revert the one you are using back to that.

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:29 PM

(I'm intentionally being a little obtuse because I'm trying to understand why adding "more" to the data model is helpful) - so why not just make that another DB

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:29 PM

If we let you have ~100+ DBs per account, or 1000?

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:30 PM

Scaleway, for example, in their DB implementation (it's somewhat different, those are actual VMs running a managed DB instance on them) has a backup/snapshot feature. Billed per GB/month (sort of like it being saved to an object storage) which get discarded after some time you define. You can lock version to bypass this and keep them forever (with the cost, of course).

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:30 PM

Right, but that makes sense when you think about disk snapshots in a traditional, VM based system, without point in time recovery.

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:30 PM

So you have to take snapshots.

MMatt Silverlock (I'm intentionally being a little obtuse because I'm trying to understand why ad...

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:32 PM

Because, let's imagine you have a sort of sample dataset you use. You have multiple Workers, Pages sites, etc. connected to it. Now, you clone it out for initial data. You run things for a while and then you want to revert. Now you have to go and change where each of those things point to (by cloning the "backup" to a separate thing, because otherwise you loose it).

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:32 PM

With a locked "snapshot" you can define, you just go there, click and replace the current instance.

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:32 PM

Or create another one.

MMatt Silverlock If we let you have ~100+ DBs per account, or 1000?

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:33 PM

Oh yeah, again, I'd be fine with both instances, they'd both work fine. It's mostly UX and having users handle the duplication vs. a simple "lock" which handles things in the backed automatically.

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:33 PM

I don't think that requires snapshots. If we let you clone over the top of another DB... then you can achieve that.

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

Oh if you do, then ok. Then 99% of the thing goes away.

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

The more new concepts we add, and the more "things" that can eat your bill (we have to list your snapshots, show usage by snapshot, etc) -> way more complexity.

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

I assumed you could only clone to new or to itself

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

This is why I push you

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

Now, you clone it out for initial data. You run things for a while and then you want to revert. Now you have to go and change where each of those things point to (by cloning the "backup" to a separate thing, because otherwise you loose it).

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

Oh yeah, I'm happy to engage in this

Matt SilverlockOP•6/29/23, 10:34 PM

That was your problem in a nutshell

MMatt Silverlock That was your problem in a nutshell 😉

itsmatteomanf•6/29/23, 10:36 PM

Yeah, with the ability to clone over something else that exists already then yeah. it's just some UX, but it makes sense. Cloudflare is more dev focused, a Scaleway has a slightly wider user base that would go to it.

MMatt Silverlock Yes - 100MB is the limit for now. We aren’t increasing database limits _yet_. Ho...

Victor•6/30/23, 5:47 PM

@elithrar Do you guys have a date in mind when you will start allowing size limit increase?

VVictor @elithrar Do you guys have a date in mind when you will start allowing size limi...

Matt SilverlockOP•6/30/23, 5:49 PM

Not that we're sharing yet. It will coincide with the beta. We won't be doing one-off increases.

Sameer Ali•6/30/23, 7:25 PM

@elithrar D1 Seems pretty stable now, what's holding off beta other than metrics and time-travel?

Victor•6/30/23, 8:50 PM

In https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/wrangler/configuration/#d1-databases, it says to use

id

id

(in line with kv format), but then the example uses

database_id

database_id

. Which one is it?

Configuration · Cloudflare Workers docs

Wrangler optionally uses a wrangler.toml configuration file to customize the development and publishing setup for a Worker.

VVictor In https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/wrangler/configuration/#d1-database...

Cyb3r-Jak3•6/30/23, 8:51 PM

database_id

database_id

chenyh_henry•7/1/23, 9:25 AM

Hi everyone, I face an issue or not support that the

 id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY

 id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY

seems not work, I follow the doc https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/tutorials/postgres/#5-interact-with-the-products-database, I know the condition is own host PostgreSQL but the D1 should be the same, right?

From the screenshot, the ID is always null.

Connect to a PostgreSQL database with Cloudflare Workers · Cloudfla...

In this tutorial, you will learn how to create a Cloudflare Workers application and connect it to a PostgreSQL database using TCP Sockets. The Workers …

vassbence•7/1/23, 9:33 AM

D1 is running on SQLite, not PostgreSQL

vassbence•7/1/23, 9:33 AM

try

id int primary key autoincrement

id int primary key autoincrement

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 7:17 AM

Does D1 has multi column primary key?

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 7:17 AM

I keep getting error from this

CREATE TABLE Love(
    uid integer NOT NULL,
    ideaId integer NOT NULL,
    PRIMARY KEY (uid, ideaId),
    createdAt datetime DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
);

CREATE TABLE Love(
    uid integer NOT NULL,
    ideaId integer NOT NULL,
    PRIMARY KEY (uid, ideaId),
    createdAt datetime DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
);

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 7:17 AM

The error

ERROR 9009: SQL prepare error: near "createdAt": syntax error in CREATE TABLE Love( uid integer NOT NULL, ideaId integer NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (uid, ideaId), createdAt datetime DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ); at offset 109

ERROR 9009: SQL prepare error: near "createdAt": syntax error in CREATE TABLE Love( uid integer NOT NULL, ideaId integer NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (uid, ideaId), createdAt datetime DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP ); at offset 109

TigersWay•7/2/23, 7:19 AM

@chientrm I believe PRIMARY KEYPRIMARY KEY need to be the last "field", so after createdAt

TTigersWay @chientrm I believe `PRIMARY KEY` need to be the last "field", so after createdA...

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 7:19 AM

wow!

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 7:19 AM

Thank you so much

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 4:32 PM

I run wrangler dev --remote when dev.
When dev, the error message is D1_ERROR: Error: ERROR 9007: SQL execute error: UNIQUE constraint failed: User.emailD1_ERROR: Error: ERROR 9007: SQL execute error: UNIQUE constraint failed: User.email
But in production, it's just D1_ERROR: ErrorD1_ERROR: Error so that I can't detect existed email

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 4:33 PM

On web console, the error is returned correctly:

ERROR 9015: SQL engine error: query error: Error code 2067: A UNIQUE constraint failed (UNIQUE constraint failed: User.email)

ERROR 9015: SQL engine error: query error: Error code 2067: A UNIQUE constraint failed (UNIQUE constraint failed: User.email)

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 4:55 PM

Oke I figured it out, on production the error message is at error.cause?.messageerror.cause?.message

MetalGear•7/2/23, 6:58 PM

Is anyone using d1 currently for a service they’re selling

MMetalGear Is anyone using d1 currently for a service they’re selling

chientrm.com•7/2/23, 10:13 PM

Just use it, it's sqlite

MMetalGear Is anyone using d1 currently for a service they’re selling

Adi•7/3/23, 4:12 AM

It's definitely a bit of a risk to use it right now, given it's alpha state there is a possibility for unexpected errors. That being said, from my experience D1 is mostly quite stable.
It's been said a few times before in this channel, but once backups are available for the new D1 backend, the risk for using this in production is much lower.

Right, that'd be `--clone/--fork` - just copy it to a fresh DB and do what you want. `--clone=new-na

Similar Threads