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。

数据库本身?没有

创建它们的脚本，包括静态数据插入、存储过程等;当然可以。它们是文本文件，它们包含在项目中，像其他东西一样签入和签出。

当然，在理想情况下，您的数据库管理工具可以做到这一点;但你必须遵守纪律。

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。

查看使用源代码控制管理数据库更改的LiquiBase。