⚡ Bolt: [성능 개선] SQLite WAL 모드 초기화 최적화

[seonghobae]

💡 What: job_store.py에서 매 연결마다 실행되던 PRAGMA journal_mode=WAL 구문을 스키마 초기화 시 단 한 번만 실행하도록 변경했습니다.
🎯 Why: SQLite의 WAL 저널 모드는 데이터베이스 파일 단위로 영구적으로 유지되므로, 짧은 연결을 반복해서 생성하는 현재 구조에서 매번 PRAGMA를 실행하는 것은 불필요한 오버헤드를 발생시킵니다.
📊 Impact: 짧은 주기의 데이터베이스 연결 시 발생하는 오버헤드를 줄여 데이터베이스 접근 성능을 향상시킵니다.
🔬 Measurement: 테스트 스위트가 정상적으로 통과하고 모든 SQLite 트랜잭션이 기존과 동일하게 동작하는지 확인합니다. 테스트 코드 내 단기 커넥션 반복 수행 시간 측정을 통해 개선을 확인할 수 있습니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 8370565756395290225 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 57 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: c3393fea-bca8-44ca-82aa-51f89b86457d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b2bc83a and 457ce5d.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .jules/bolt.md
• CHANGELOG.md
• job_store.py

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 457ce5de209e6099858ad726357ac83ba432679c.

• Head SHA: 457ce5de209e6099858ad726357ac83ba432679c

• Workflow run: 31433407586

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 457ce5de209e6099858ad726357ac83ba432679c
• Workflow run: 31433407586
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 457ce5de209e6099858ad726357ac83ba432679c.

• Head SHA: 457ce5de209e6099858ad726357ac83ba432679c

• Workflow run: 31433407586

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by canonical #380. This branch's job_store.py change is the same persistent-WAL initialization move; #380 contains that delta plus the corresponding usage_metering.py boundary, avoiding a second partial authority for one repository-wide optimization. The useful connection-docstring wording remains visible here for reconciliation. No check, review, or approval evidence transfers between heads.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as superseded by canonical #380. This branch's job_store.py change is the same persistent-WAL initialization move; #380 contains that delta plus the corresponding usage_metering.py boundary, avoiding a second partial authority for one repository-wide optimization. The useful connection-docstring wording remains visible here for reconciliation. No check, review, or approval evidence transfers between heads.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.