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

Sadly, I've seen more than one team developing PL/SQL programs (stored procedures in Oracle) - sometimes ten thousands LOC - just by editing the code in TOAD (a database tool), without even saving the source to files (except for deployment). Even if the database is backuped regulary (wouldn't take that for granted, though), the only way to retrieve an old version of a stored procedure is to restore the whole database, which is many GB large. And of course sometimes concurrent changes in one file lead to loss of work, when more than one developer works on the same project.

其他回答

我们对所有dabase创建的对象进行源代码控制。为了让开发人员保持诚实(因为你可以在没有源代码控制的情况下创建对象),我们的dba定期寻找不在源代码控制中的任何东西,如果他们找到了什么,他们就会丢弃它,而不询问它是否ok。

仅供参考,几天前Dana也提出了这个问题…源代码控制中的存储过程/DB模式

我们在源代码控制下有创建/修改脚本。至于数据库本身,当您有数百个表并且每分钟处理大量数据时,对所有数据库进行版本化将是CPU和HDD的杀手。这就是为什么在我看来,备份仍然是控制数据的最佳方式。

对于oracle,我使用自己编写的java程序oracle-ddl2svn自动跟踪oracle DDL方案在SVN中的变化

Sadly, I've seen more than one team developing PL/SQL programs (stored procedures in Oracle) - sometimes ten thousands LOC - just by editing the code in TOAD (a database tool), without even saving the source to files (except for deployment). Even if the database is backuped regulary (wouldn't take that for granted, though), the only way to retrieve an old version of a stored procedure is to restore the whole database, which is many GB large. And of course sometimes concurrent changes in one file lead to loss of work, when more than one developer works on the same project.