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。

其他回答

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。

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。

查看使用源代码控制管理数据库更改的LiquiBase。

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。

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.