Kira的主要用例之一是通过显式地将数据库外部的模式指定为代码来进行数据库升级。然后，它可以管理数据库，并将其从任何版本升级到任何版本。

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。

是的,总是这样。您应该能够在需要时使用一组有用的示例数据重新创建生产数据库结构。如果你不这样做，随着时间的推移，保持运行的小改变会被遗忘，然后有一天你会被咬，严重的。这是一种保险，你可能认为你不需要，但当你这样做的那一天，它的价格是它的10倍!

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.

任何数据库接口代码都应该进入版本控制(存储过程、函数等)。

对于结构和数据，这是一个判断。我个人对我的数据库保持一个干净的结构模板，但由于它们的大小，不将它们存储在版本控制中。但是将它存储在版本控制中是非常有益的，即使对于只有历史记录也是如此。

是的，我们的源代码控制我们的sql脚本也与subversion。这是一个很好的实践，您可以在需要时使用默认数据重新创建模式。