Conversation
mbarlow12
had a problem deploying
to
development
September 18, 2026 17:52 — with 
GitHub Actions
Error
GitHub Actions
Error
CD summary
|
| db_name | postgres_host | postgres_port | postgres_db |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_0279 | stitch-dev.postgres.database.azure.com |
5432 |
pr_0279 |
Images (4)
| build_time | commit_time | git_sha | image | image_digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-18T17:52:26Z | 2026-09-18T17:52:07Z | 3a41c37 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279@sha256:ea4eebf824117a19d566cb9c8f9d5edce8eeb44e15275ad177503c273c75382d |
| 2026-09-18T17:52:25Z | 2026-09-18T17:52:07Z | 3a41c37 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279@sha256:c45c7eae3d959263de3c5a2d716b703691655b765bab7cd56f677a55a916c5b0 |
| 2026-09-18T17:52:26Z | 2026-09-18T17:52:07Z | 3a41c37 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279@sha256:2e36f7b1441fd214a2a2caf5db59404fccd9fe5d380a15905ab199ccf85a6501 |
| 2026-09-18T17:52:25Z | 2026-09-18T17:52:07Z | 3a41c37 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279@sha256:970d5c451bf8493d2ea1c7dc28620ff0fd5707f4cb5e4eb80225ed9347aa3b8c |
CD summary
|
| db_name | postgres_host | postgres_port | postgres_db |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_0279 | stitch-dev.postgres.database.azure.com |
5432 |
pr_0279 |
Images (4)
| build_time | commit_time | git_sha | image | image_digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-18T17:55:18Z | 2026-09-18T17:54:35Z | f1cb57c | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279@sha256:e2cea949199016e474d2f15cb5b42e281d31c479a8c940a750eb9912a26a6643 |
| 2026-09-18T17:55:19Z | 2026-09-18T17:54:35Z | f1cb57c | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279@sha256:450bc7e9c8bb0c30d3ff6d0f5591140106eee11951d93e9c3dec5d2d2e64b8d9 |
| 2026-09-18T17:55:18Z | 2026-09-18T17:54:35Z | f1cb57c | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279@sha256:fbeed77c90f8d1a8ae10ee06d2dde35b18187a78061b628561b88ea362cfdebd |
| 2026-09-18T17:55:20Z | 2026-09-18T17:54:35Z | f1cb57c | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279@sha256:5d3a8479df3800c2c21f23817b77c30349a4c54e848fc752812abd85f3157baa |
mbarlow12
had a problem deploying
to
development
September 18, 2026 17:56 — with
GitHub Actions
Error
GitHub Actions
Error
CD summary
|
| db_name | postgres_host | postgres_port | postgres_db |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_0279 | stitch-dev.postgres.database.azure.com |
5432 |
pr_0279 |
Jobs (1)
| job | image | postgres_db |
|---|---|---|
| db-migrations | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279@sha256:f2707c67a42f86b6da89ddbb65864b8bb041b9403f25416824310292c8c4183d |
pr_0279 |
Images (4)
| build_time | commit_time | git_sha | image | image_digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-18T17:56:27Z | 2026-09-18T17:55:42Z | 5b43d27 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279@sha256:f2707c67a42f86b6da89ddbb65864b8bb041b9403f25416824310292c8c4183d |
| 2026-09-18T17:56:27Z | 2026-09-18T17:55:42Z | 5b43d27 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279@sha256:de6c95e3d392dbd6353c9396882d07641a86d30d35eb2106ef2047c44a7e05e1 |
| 2026-09-18T17:56:28Z | 2026-09-18T17:55:42Z | 5b43d27 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279@sha256:2b9b6bacc12ce6f47c9a6942b9a512e4ee15b8216fcd215b136dd2f1600f04b6 |
| 2026-09-18T17:56:29Z | 2026-09-18T17:55:42Z | 5b43d27 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279@sha256:6bdb510aeb48f43e39615fb06020f2438b3c0fffc77cc16250cf46f22b0aa469 |
CD summary
|
| service | url | fqdn |
|---|---|---|
| api | open | pr-0279-api.purplegrass-c07d0a94.westus2.azurecontainerapps.io |
| entity-linkage | open | pr-0279-el.purplegrass-c07d0a94.westus2.azurecontainerapps.io |
| frontend | https://witty-mushroom-017a3dc1e-279.westus2.1.azurestaticapps.net | |
| stitch-llm | open | pr-0279-llm.purplegrass-c07d0a94.westus2.azurecontainerapps.io |
Database (1)
| db_name | postgres_host | postgres_port | postgres_db |
|---|---|---|---|
| pr_0279 | stitch-dev.postgres.database.azure.com |
5432 |
pr_0279 |
Jobs (1)
| job | image | postgres_db |
|---|---|---|
| db-migrations | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279@sha256:539a0c72039d84f6e4b8a12bb346c209e6ea787341350008706cbda4d0257bcf |
pr_0279 |
Images (4)
| build_time | commit_time | git_sha | image | image_digest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-18T17:57:38Z | 2026-09-18T17:57:00Z | 18df0f8 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-api:pr-0279@sha256:539a0c72039d84f6e4b8a12bb346c209e6ea787341350008706cbda4d0257bcf |
| 2026-09-18T17:57:34Z | 2026-09-18T17:57:00Z | 18df0f8 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-entity-linkage:pr-0279@sha256:02f78ae66c7fd0e6252d784a739434a82c37850640ea5071149beeb7be5d5de2 |
| 2026-09-18T17:57:37Z | 2026-09-18T17:57:00Z | 18df0f8 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-seed:pr-0279@sha256:c308e54799ac800f27c50540a562768e170cb7cd99f743066d58706a343d9dbf |
| 2026-09-18T17:57:35Z | 2026-09-18T17:57:00Z | 18df0f8 | ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279 |
ghcr.io/rmi/stitch-stitch-llm:pr-0279@sha256:ea0a6018690b07af41bb6c47bcf13c759f72967636725050ccbee35fc66e1680 |
john
reviewed
Sep 23, 2026
| - user with `wm + cc` sees `wm` | ||
| - user with `wm` sees `wm` | ||
| - user with `cc` sees `cc` | ||
| - remaining users see `gem` |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be gem, or "all combined public sources?" Like why couldnt' they see GEM+BC? Same question repeats below. You say it above, just confirming in the bullets too.
Re-read, think I get it--the presumption is if both BC and GEM have coords, we'll defaul to GEM?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right. This was one spot where I suspected a diagram/table would be more illustrative.
john
reviewed
Sep 23, 2026
|
|
||
| The purpose is to provide a durable store that houses the flattened/coalesced resources. We're effectively precomputing the coalescing logic and saving it to a single table. The actual schema is less important than its function and the constraints we place on it. | ||
|
|
||
| It must: |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We talked about this and it's inherent, but just to be clear/pedantic, it must also be re-creatable. Like if this table is inadvertently dropped, it would straightforward to recreate it by marching through the resources and re-precomputing. We should be careful to maintain that, ie not add to the table in the future in a way that it would hold data that could be recontructed--so we will be adding complexity, but it's low-risk complexity.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@john Is that sufficiently captured in:
- be able to be rebuilt from scratch at any time, we should be able to derive the data for the table easily & quickly
Or is there some rewording you think it needs?
john
reviewed
Sep 23, 2026
| > We can also use permission columns for the minor cost of duplicating data across columns. Benefits from being a simpler more understandable approach. | ||
|
|
||
| **record column as jsonb** | ||
| We'd effectively house the entire flat Pydantic model in json. The main reasoning is that we can likely expand to near-instant full-text search without much difficulty. It's also partially as an experiment to assess the difficulty of working with Postgres JSON syntax and investigate whether there are performance trade-offs. Should it prove easy to use while still being performant, it opens the door to using it in other places across our application where we might want greater flexibility in our data handling. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having done this before, JSON search semantics are weird but not hard. But also we can encapsulate them so they can be used or not, and it's hidden, and can be changed without effects on calling code. Also I suspect it's avoidable in most other cases, which we may want to aim for just to reduce the set of things most devs need to understand.
john
reviewed
Sep 23, 2026
Draft
This branch was successfully deployed
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Attempt 1 at a design doc for a DB architecture proposal.
Design Doc (rendered)
Would welcome feedback along 2 separate axes:
I've tried to hit a relatively high level of abstraction to provide freedom in implementation for more minute details. Any glaring oversights? Potential bugs? Missing components?
Unclear wording or missing sections? Too detailed or not detailed enough?
AI helped with an initial draft, but I essentially overwrote the entire thing. I also used AI to draft
draft-schema.sqlanddraft-schema-operations-api.mdfiles. They're very early iterations and are largely outdated, but they represent a rough initial solution to the db structural issues.