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
The most successful scheme I've ever used on a project has combined backups and differential SQL files. Basically we would take a backup of our db after every release and do an SQL dump so that we could create a blank schema from scratch if we needed to as well. Then anytime you needed to make a change to the DB you would add an alter scrip to the sql directory under version control. We would always prefix a sequence number or date to the file name so the first change would be something like 01_add_created_on_column.sql, and the next script would be 02_added_customers_index. Our CI machine would check for these and run them sequentially on a fresh copy of the db that had been restored from the backup.
我们还准备了一些脚本,开发人员可以用一个命令将本地db重新初始化到当前版本。
其他回答
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.
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。
A big problem, often overlooked, is that for larger web based systems, it is required to have a transitional period or bucket testing approach to making new releases. This makes it essential to have both rollback and a mechanism for supporting both the old and new schema in the same DB. This requires a scaffolding approach (made populist by the Agile DB folks). In this scenario, lack of process in DB source control can be a total disaster. You need old schema scripts, new schema scripts and a set of intermediate scripts, as well as a tidy up, once the system is fully on the new version (or rolled back).
需要的不是从头开始重新创建模式的脚本,而是一种基于状态的方法,在这种方法中,您只需要脚本将DB从一个版本移动到另一个版本,向前或向后移动到所需的状态。您的DB变成了一系列状态脚本,可以轻松地对其进行源代码控制,并与源代码的其余部分一起标记。
RedGate很棒,当数据库发生变化时,我们会生成新的快照(一个小的二进制文件),并将该文件作为资源保存在项目中。每当我们需要更新数据库时,我们使用RedGate的工具包来更新数据库,并且能够从空数据库创建新的数据库。
RedGate也制作数据快照,虽然我个人没有使用过,但它们同样强大。
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。