我觉得我的商店有一个漏洞,因为我们没有一个可靠的过程来控制数据库模式更改的版本。我们做了很多备份,所以我们或多或少地得到了保护,但以这种方式依赖于最后一道防线是一种糟糕的做法。
令人惊讶的是,这似乎是一个共同的主线。与我交谈过的许多商店都忽略了这个问题,因为他们的数据库不会经常更改,他们基本上只是尽量做到一丝不苟。
不过,我知道这个故事是怎么发展的。这只是时间问题,迟早会出问题,会有东西丢失。
在这方面有什么最佳实践吗?你有哪些行之有效的策略?
我觉得我的商店有一个漏洞,因为我们没有一个可靠的过程来控制数据库模式更改的版本。我们做了很多备份,所以我们或多或少地得到了保护,但以这种方式依赖于最后一道防线是一种糟糕的做法。
令人惊讶的是,这似乎是一个共同的主线。与我交谈过的许多商店都忽略了这个问题,因为他们的数据库不会经常更改,他们基本上只是尽量做到一丝不苟。
不过,我知道这个故事是怎么发展的。这只是时间问题,迟早会出问题,会有东西丢失。
在这方面有什么最佳实践吗?你有哪些行之有效的策略?
当前回答
哇,这么多答案。对于可靠的数据库版本控制,您需要对更改数据库的代码进行版本控制。一些CMS提供配置管理工具,比如Drupal 8中的配置管理工具。以下是一个实用步骤的概述,可以安排您的工作流并确保数据库配置是版本化的,即使是在团队环境中:
其他回答
My team versions our database schema as C# classes with the rest of our code. We have a homegrown C# program (<500 lines of code) that reflects the classes and creates SQL commands to build, drop and update the database. After creating the database we run sqlmetal to generate a linq mapping, which is then compiled in another project that is used to generate test data. The whole things works really well because data access is checked at compile time. We like it because the schema is stored in a .cs file which is easy to track compare in trac/svn.
I've heard people say you absolutely have to keep your schemas in the database. I'm not sure I agree. This really depends on the system you're working with. If your system is relatively small and the data is not terribly important. And the the speed at which you need to bring another development environment online is crucial.. then yes.. you can benefit from it. However when your schema is useless without the data and the database is extremely large, it becomes virtually impossible to "source control" your database. Sure, you can still keep your DDL code in source control but that's essentially useless. You can't get the data needed without backup/restore.
在大型数据库开发工作中,我发现备份和恢复是首选的回滚选项。当然,你可以在源代码控制中保留过程、视图、函数等,但要保留表。SQL不是必需的。此外,如果您的部署过程是无懈可击的,那么您很可能永远不需要“回滚”您的生产环境。
必须阅读将数据库置于版本控制之下。查看K. Scott Allen的系列帖子。
When it comes to version control, the database is often a second or even third-class citizen. From what I've seen, teams that would never think of writing code without version control in a million years-- and rightly so-- can somehow be completely oblivious to the need for version control around the critical databases their applications rely on. I don't know how you can call yourself a software engineer and maintain a straight face when your database isn't under exactly the same rigorous level of source control as the rest of your code. Don't let this happen to you. Get your database under version control.
Your project team can have a DBA to whom every developer would forward their create alter, delete, insert/update (for master data) sql statements. DBAs would run those queries and on successfully making the required update would add those statements to a text file or a spreadsheet. Each addition can be labeled as a savepoint. Incase you revert back to a particular savepoint, just do a drop all and run the queries uptil the labelled savepoint. This approach is just a thought... a bit of fine tuning here would work for your development environment.
这对我来说也一直是一个很大的烦恼——似乎对开发数据库进行快速更改,保存它(忘记保存更改脚本)太容易了,然后你就卡在那里了。您可以撤消刚才所做的并重新做它以创建更改脚本,当然,如果您愿意的话,也可以从头开始编写它,尽管这将花费大量的时间来编写脚本。
A tool that I have used in the past that has helped with this some is SQL Delta. It will show you the differences between two databases (SQL server/Oracle I believe) and generate all the change scripts necessary to migrate A->B. Another nice thing it does is show all the differences between database content between the production (or test) DB and your development DB. Since more and more apps store configuration and state that is crucial to their execution in database tables, it can be a real pain to have change scripts that remove, add, and alter the proper rows. SQL Delta shows the rows in the database just like they would look in a Diff tool - changed, added, deleted.
一个很好的工具。以下是链接: http://www.sqldelta.com/