我们有一个每周的sql转储到一个颠覆回购。这是完全自动化的，但这是一项非常繁重的任务。

你会想要限制修改的数量，因为它真的会在一段时间后消耗磁盘空间!

查看使用源代码控制管理数据库更改的LiquiBase。

在我们的业务中，我们使用数据库更改脚本。运行脚本时，它的名称存储在数据库中，并且不会再次运行，除非删除该行。脚本是基于日期、时间和代码分支命名的，因此可以控制执行。

在脚本在实际环境中运行之前，已经完成了大量的测试，所以一般来说，“oopsies”只发生在开发数据库上。

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.

I agree with many of the posting concerning ruby's ActiveRecord migrations - they are an elegant way to manage the database in small incremental files that everyone can share. With that said, I've recently implemented a project using VisualStudio's Database Project, and it's kinda made me a believer. Short story - you create a database project, import all (if any) existing database objects into it (tables/views/triggers/keys/users/etc). That import results in a "Create" script per object. To manage the database you alter the create script and then on deploy VS compares the target database to the state of the database residing in your project and apply the proper alter statements.

这真的有点神奇，我必须承认，这是VS团队做的更好的事情之一。到目前为止，我真的很感动。

当然，您可以在自己选择的版本控制系统中管理整个数据库项目。

我已经开始研究sqlHawk，它的目标是围绕这个问题提供(开源)工具。

它目前处于相当早期的阶段，但已经支持存储和执行存储过程以及运行脚本更新。

如果有任何人有时间看这个工具，我将非常感激。

为公然的自我推销道歉，但我希望这对某人有用!