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
我非常喜欢Rails ActiveRecord迁移。它将DML抽象为ruby脚本,然后可以在源存储库中轻松地进行版本化。
然而,通过一些工作,您可以做到同样的事情。任何DDL更改(ALTER TABLE等)都可以存储在文本文件中。为文件名保留编号系统(或日期戳),并按顺序应用它们。
Rails在DB中还有一个'version'表,用于跟踪上一次应用的迁移。你可以很容易地做到这一点。
其他回答
作为一种规则,我们将所有的对象代码(存储过程、视图、触发器、函数等)都保存在源代码控制中,因为这些对象都是代码,而且几乎所有其他答案都同意,代码属于某种形式的版本控制系统。
As for CREATE, DROP, ALTER statements, etc. (DDL), we developed and use BuildMaster to manage the deployment of these scripts such that they can be run once and only once against a target database (whether they fail or not). The general idea is that developers will upload change scripts into the system and when it comes time for deployment, only the change scripts that haven't been run against the target environment's database will be run (this is managed very similarly to Autocracy's answer). The reason for this separation of script types lies in that once you manipulate a table's structure, add an index, etc., you effectively cannot undo that without writing a brand new script, or restoring the database - as opposed to the object code where you can simply drop a view or stored procedure then recreate it.
例如,当您将生产数据库恢复到集成环境中时,可以看到一些好处,系统会自动准确地知道哪些脚本没有运行,并将更改新恢复的数据库的表结构,使其与开发相关。
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.
关于数据库模型本身有很多讨论,但是我们也将所需的数据保存在. sql文件中。
例如,为了让你的应用程序更有用,你可能需要在安装时这样做:
INSERT INTO Currency (CurrencyCode, CurrencyName)
VALUES ('AUD', 'Australian Dollars');
INSERT INTO Currency (CurrencyCode, CurrencyName)
VALUES ('USD', 'US Dollars');
我们会有一个名为currency的文件。subversion下的SQL。作为构建过程中的一个手动步骤,我们将比较以前的货币。SQL到最新版本,并编写升级脚本。
我已经在http://dbdeploy.com/上使用了ThoughtWorks的dbdeploy工具。它鼓励使用迁移脚本。在每个版本中,我们将更改脚本合并到一个文件中,以简化理解,并允许dba“支持”更改。
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.