I'm doing a web app, and I need to make a branch for some major changes, the thing is, these changes require changes to the database schema, so I'd like to put the entire database under git as well.
How do I do that? is there a specific folder that I can keep under a git repository? How do I know which one? How can I be sure that I'm putting the right folder?
I need to be sure, because these changes are not backward compatible; I can't afford to screw up.
The database in my case is PostgreSQL
Edit:
Someone suggested taking backups and putting the backup file under version control instead of the database. To be honest, I find that really hard to swallow.
There has to be a better way.
Update:
OK, so there' no better way, but I'm still not quite convinced, so I will change the question a bit:
I'd like to put the entire database under version control, what database engine can I use so that I can put the actual database under version control instead of its dump?
Would sqlite be git-friendly?
Since this is only the development environment, I can choose whatever database I want.
Edit2:
What I really want is not to track my development history, but to be able to switch from my "new radical changes" branch to the "current stable branch" and be able for instance to fix some bugs/issues, etc, with the current stable branch. Such that when I switch branches, the database auto-magically becomes compatible with the branch I'm currently on.
I don't really care much about the actual data.
Take a database dump, and version control that instead. This way it is a flat text file.
Personally I suggest that you keep both a data dump, and a schema dump. This way using diff it becomes fairly easy to see what changed in the schema from revision to revision.
If you are making big changes, you should have a secondary database that you make the new schema changes to and not touch the old one since as you said you are making a branch.
I'm starting to think of a really simple solution, don't know why I didn't think of it before!!
Duplicate the database, (both the schema and the data).
In the branch for the new-major-changes, simply change the project configuration to use the new duplicate database.
This way I can switch branches without worrying about database schema changes.
EDIT:
By duplicate, I mean create another database with a different name (like my_db_2); not doing a dump or anything like that.
Use something like LiquiBase this lets you keep revision control of your Liquibase files. you can tag changes for production only, and have lb keep your DB up to date for either production or development, (or whatever scheme you want).
Irmin (branching + time travel)
Flur.ee (immutable + time travel + graph query)
XTDB (formerly called 'CruxDB') (time travel + query)
TerminusDB (immutable + branching + time travel + Graph Query!)
DoltDB (branching + time-travel + SQL query)
Quadrable (branching + remote state verification)
EdgeDB (no real time travel, but migrations derived by the compiler after schema changes)
Migra (diffing for Postgres schemas/data. Auto-generate migration scripts, auto-sync db state)
ImmuDB (immutable + time-travel)
I've come across this question, as I've got a similar problem, where something approximating a DB based Directory structure, stores 'files', and I need git to manage it. It's distributed, across a cloud, using replication, hence it's access point will be via MySQL.
The gist of the above answers, seem to similarly suggest an alternative solution to the problem asked, which kind of misses the point, of using Git to manage something in a Database, so I'll attempt to answer that question.
Git is a system, which in essence stores a database of deltas (differences), which can be reassembled, in order, to reproduce a context. The normal usage of git assumes that context is a filesystem, and those deltas are diff's in that file system, but really all git is, is a hierarchical database of deltas (hierarchical, because in most cases each delta is a commit with at least 1 parents, arranged in a tree).
As long as you can generate a delta, in theory, git can store it. The problem is normally git expects the context, on which it's generating delta's to be a file system, and similarly, when you checkout a point in the git hierarchy, it expects to generate a filesystem.
If you want to manage change, in a database, you have 2 discrete problems, and I would address them separately (if I were you). The first is schema, the second is data (although in your question, you state data isn't something you're concerned about). A problem I had in the past, was a Dev and Prod database, where Dev could take incremental changes to the schema, and those changes had to be documented in CVS, and propogated to live, along with additions to one of several 'static' tables. We did that by having a 3rd database, called Cruise, which contained only the static data. At any point the schema from Dev and Cruise could be compared, and we had a script to take the diff of those 2 files and produce an SQL file containing ALTER statements, to apply it. Similarly any new data, could be distilled to an SQL file containing INSERT commands. As long as fields and tables are only added, and never deleted, the process could automate generating the SQL statements to apply the delta.
The mechanism by which git generates deltas is diff and the mechanism by which it combines 1 or more deltas with a file, is called merge. If you can come up with a method for diffing and merging from a different context, git should work, but as has been discussed you may prefer a tool that does that for you. My first thought towards solving that is this https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Configuration#External-Merge-and-Diff-Tools which details how to replace git's internal diff and merge tool. I'll update this answer, as I come up with a better solution to the problem, but in my case I expect to only have to manage data changes, in-so-far-as a DB based filestore may change, so my solution may not be exactly what you need.
There is a great project called Migrations under Doctrine that built just for this purpose.
Its still in alpha state and built for php.
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-migrations/en/latest/index.html
Take a look at RedGate SQL Source Control.
http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-source-control/
This tool is a SQL Server Management Studio snap-in which will allow you to place your database under Source Control with Git.
It's a bit pricey at $495 per user, but there is a 28 day free trial available.
NOTE
I am not affiliated with RedGate in any way whatsoever.
I've released a tool for sqlite that does what you're asking for. It uses a custom diff driver leveraging the sqlite projects tool 'sqldiff', UUIDs as primary keys, and leaves off the sqlite rowid. It is still in alpha so feedback is appreciated.
Postgres and mysql are trickier, as the binary data is kept in multiple files and may not even be valid if you were able to snapshot it.
https://github.com/cannadayr/git-sqlite
I want to make something similar, add my database changes to my version control system.
I am going to follow the ideas in this post from Vladimir Khorikov "Database versioning best practices". In summary i will
store both its schema and the reference data in a source control system.
for every modification we will create a separate SQL script with the changes
In case it helps!
You can't do it without atomicity, and you can't get atomicity without either using pg_dump or a snapshotting filesystem.
My postgres instance is on zfs, which I snapshot occasionally. It's approximately instant and consistent.
I think X-Istence is on the right track, but there are a few more improvements you can make to this strategy. First, use:
$pg_dump --schema ...
to dump the tables, sequences, etc and place this file under version control. You'll use this to separate the compatibility changes between your branches.
Next, perform a data dump for the set of tables that contain configuration required for your application to operate (should probably skip user data, etc), like form defaults and other data non-user modifiable data. You can do this selectively by using:
$pg_dump --table=.. <or> --exclude-table=..
This is a good idea because the repo can get really clunky when your database gets to 100Mb+ when doing a full data dump. A better idea is to back up a more minimal set of data that you require to test your app. If your default data is very large though, this may still cause problems though.
If you absolutely need to place full backups in the repo, consider doing it in a branch outside of your source tree. An external backup system with some reference to the matching svn rev is likely best for this though.
Also, I suggest using text format dumps over binary for revision purposes (for the schema at least) since these are easier to diff. You can always compress these to save space prior to checking in.
Finally, have a look at the postgres backup documentation if you haven't already. The way you're commenting on backing up 'the database' rather than a dump makes me wonder if you're thinking of file system based backups (see section 23.2 for caveats).
What you want, in spirit, is perhaps something like Post Facto, which stores versions of a database in a database. Check this presentation.
The project apparently never really went anywhere, so it probably won't help you immediately, but it's an interesting concept. I fear that doing this properly would be very difficult, because even version 1 would have to get all the details right in order to have people trust their work to it.
This question is pretty much answered but I would like to complement X-Istence's and Dana the Sane's answer with a small suggestion.
If you need revision control with some degree of granularity, say daily, you could couple the text dump of both the tables and the schema with a tool like rdiff-backup which does incremental backups. The advantage is that instead of storing snapshots of daily backups, you simply store the differences from the previous day.
With this you have both the advantage of revision control and you don't waste too much space.
In any case, using git directly on big flat files which change very frequently is not a good solution. If your database becomes too big, git will start to have some problems managing the files.
Here is what i am trying to do in my projects:
separate data and schema and default data.
The database configuration is stored in configuration file that is not under version control (.gitignore)
The database defaults (for setting up new Projects) is a simple SQL file under version control.
For the database schema create a database schema dump under the version control.
The most common way is to have update scripts that contains SQL Statements, (ALTER Table.. or UPDATE). You also need to have a place in your database where you save the current version of you schema)
Take a look at other big open source database projects (piwik,or your favorite cms system), they all use updatescripts (1.sql,2.sql,3.sh,4.php.5.sql)
But this a very time intensive job, you have to create, and test the updatescripts and you need to run a common updatescript that compares the version and run all necessary update scripts.
So theoretically (and thats what i am looking for) you could
dumped the the database schema after each change (manually, conjob, git hooks (maybe before commit))
(and only in some very special cases create updatescripts)
After that in your common updatescript (run the normal updatescripts, for the special cases) and then compare the schemas (the dump and current database) and then automatically generate the nessesary ALTER Statements. There some tools that can do this already, but haven't found yet a good one.
What I do in my personal projects is, I store my whole database to dropbox and then point MAMP, WAMP workflow to use it right from there.. That way database is always up-to-date where ever I need to do some developing. But that's just for dev! Live sites is using own server for that off course! :)
Storing each level of database changes under git versioning control is like pushing your entire database with each commit and restoring your entire database with each pull.
If your database is so prone to crucial changes and you cannot afford to loose them, you can just update your pre_commit and post_merge hooks.
I did the same with one of my projects and you can find the directions here.
That's how I do it:
Since your have free choise about DB type use a filebased DB like e.g. firebird.
Create a template DB which has the schema that fits your actual branch and store it in your repository.
When executing your application programmatically create a copy of your template DB, store it somewhere else and just work with that copy.
This way you can put your DB schema under version control without the data. And if you change your schema you just have to change the template DB
We used to run a social website, on a standard LAMP configuration. We had a Live server, Test server, and Development server, as well as the local developers machines. All were managed using GIT.
On each machine, we had the PHP files, but also the MySQL service, and a folder with Images that users would upload. The Live server grew to have some 100K (!) recurrent users, the dump was about 2GB (!), the Image folder was some 50GB (!). By the time that I left, our server was reaching the limit of its CPU, Ram, and most of all, the concurrent net connection limits (We even compiled our own version of network card driver to max out the server 'lol'). We could not (nor should you assume with your website) put 2GB of data and 50GB of images in GIT.
To manage all this under GIT easily, we would ignore the binary folders (the folders containing the Images) by inserting these folder paths into .gitignore. We also had a folder called SQL outside the Apache documentroot path. In that SQL folder, we would put our SQL files from the developers in incremental numberings (001.florianm.sql, 001.johns.sql, 002.florianm.sql, etc). These SQL files were managed by GIT as well. The first sql file would indeed contain a large set of DB schema. We don't add user-data in GIT (eg the records of the users table, or the comments table), but data like configs or topology or other site specific data, was maintained in the sql files (and hence by GIT). Mostly its the developers (who know the code best) that determine what and what is not maintained by GIT with regards to SQL schema and data.
When it got to a release, the administrator logs in onto the dev server, merges the live branch with all developers and needed branches on the dev machine to an update branch, and pushed it to the test server. On the test server, he checks if the updating process for the Live server is still valid, and in quick succession, points all traffic in Apache to a placeholder site, creates a DB dump, points the working directory from 'live' to 'update', executes all new sql files into mysql, and repoints the traffic back to the correct site. When all stakeholders agreed after reviewing the test server, the Administrator did the same thing from Test server to Live server. Afterwards, he merges the live branch on the production server, to the master branch accross all servers, and rebased all live branches. The developers were responsible themselves to rebase their branches, but they generally know what they are doing.
If there were problems on the test server, eg. the merges had too many conflicts, then the code was reverted (pointing the working branch back to 'live') and the sql files were never executed. The moment that the sql files were executed, this was considered as a non-reversible action at the time. If the SQL files were not working properly, then the DB was restored using the Dump (and the developers told off, for providing ill-tested SQL files).
Today, we maintain both a sql-up and sql-down folder, with equivalent filenames, where the developers have to test that both the upgrading sql files, can be equally downgraded. This could ultimately be executed with a bash script, but its a good idea if human eyes kept monitoring the upgrade process.
It's not great, but its manageable. Hope this gives an insight into a real-life, practical, relatively high-availability site. Be it a bit outdated, but still followed.
Update Aug 26, 2019:
Netlify CMS is doing it with GitHub, an example implementation can be found here with all information on how they implemented it netlify-cms-backend-github
I say don't. Data can change at any given time. Instead you should only commit data models in your code, schema and table definitions (create database and create table statements) and sample data for unit tests. This is kinda the way that Laravel does it, committing database migrations and seeds.
I would recommend neXtep (Link removed - Domain was taken over by a NSFW-Website) for version controlling the database it has got a good set of documentation and forums that explains how to install and the errors encountered. I have tested it for postgreSQL 9.1 and 9.3, i was able to get it working for 9.1 but for 9.3 it doesn't seems to work.
Use a tool like iBatis Migrations (manual, short tutorial video) which allows you to version control the changes you make to a database throughout the lifecycle of a project, rather than the database itself.
This allows you to selectively apply individual changes to different environments, keep a changelog of which changes are in which environments, create scripts to apply changes A through N, rollback changes, etc.
I'd like to put the entire database under version control, what
database engine can I use so that I can put the actual database under
version control instead of its dump?
This is not database engine dependent. By Microsoft SQL Server there are lots of version controlling programs. I don't think that problem can be solved with git, you have to use a pgsql specific schema version control system. I don't know whether such a thing exists or not...
Use a version-controlled database, of which there are now several.
https://www.dolthub.com/blog/2021-09-17-database-version-control/
These products don't apply version control on top of another type of database -- they are their own database engines that support version control operations. So you need to migrate to them or start building on them in the first place.
I write one of them, DoltDB, which combines the interfaces of MySQL and Git. Check it out here:
https://github.com/dolthub/dolt
I wish it were simpler. Checking in the schema as a text file is a good start to capture the structure of the DB. For the content, however, I have not found a cleaner, better method for git than CSV files. One per table. The DB can then be edited on multiple branches and merges extremely well.
Related
We want to clean up our database schema and drop/delete objects which are no longer being used.
We suspect that sometime in the future we'll want to resurrect the removed functionality.
We've discussed the following options for dealing with dropped objects in version control:
Deleting the .sql files from source control once they are gone from the database and relying on the version history to store the definitions. Our concern with this approach is that sometime over the years source control will be moved and we will lose the history. It also seems difficult to know what to look for to recover if we can't see all the dropped objects.
Leaving the .sql files in source control but updating the definitions to "drop proc {someproc}". With this approach we our concerned about leaving the objects in version control which no longer exists and also the risk to losing the history if the vcs was moved
Creating a new repo for dropped objects and migrating .sql files to this repo once they have been dropped from SQL Server.
We're working in a windows environment and are fairly new to working with VCS for databases. Currently GIT + SSDT.
Currently option 3 is our preferred approach.
I see this a lot with database code, what happens is over time people end up with stuff in the database that is either not used or just does not work (think a proc that references a table and the table is modified but not the proc).
The thing to do is to get everything in source control (which it looks like you have) and then create a tag or branch of all the code before and after deleting it so you can get it back.
Two things normally transpire, either the code was genuinely never used or it was used at year end and when you find out, the world is about to fall on your head so better have a quick way to get it back.
Of course if you had a full suite of tests then even the year end process would be safe :)
I personally wouldn't use option 3, I would just keep the history in the main branch so you keep the history with it.
ed
There are a lot of good tools for versioning database changes: you have a big chance to get this question closed with "Too broad" reason, but I'll try to suggest to
Read about, understand and try to add Liquibase to your Development-Toolbox
Adopt your workflow for using this additional layer - technically it will be one more file (changelog in terms of Liquibase) in changesets, where you changing DD and|or data.
These changelogs provide good and smooth way of moving back and forth in linear history of changes in databases, not so good (or I don't know The Right Way) for direct jumping between nodes of diverged history, but it seems not your case
From your options-list it will be more p.1, than others (but it's storing changes in database in version-contol, not states)
Just to note another option, in SSDT you can mark the file property as Build Action = None. The file won't be included in the dacpac when this build option is selected. But I tend to agree with the idea that you should rely on your VCS to handle history.
We are building a webapp which is shipped to several client as a debian package. Each client runs his own server. But the update and support is done by us.
We make regular releases of the product, with a clean version number. Most of the users get an automatic update (by Puppet), some others don't.
We want to keep a trace of the version of the application (in order to allow the user to check the version in an "about" section, and for our support to help the user more accurately).
We plan to store the version of the code and the version of the base in our database, and to keep the info up to date automatically.
Is that a good idea ?
The other alternative we see is a file.
EDIT : The code and database schema are updated together. ( if we update to version x.y.z , both code and database go to x.y.z )
Using a table to track every change to a schema as described in this post is a good practice that I'd definitely suggest to follow.
For the application, if it is shipped independently of the database (which is not clear to me), I'd embed a file in the package (and thus not use the database to store the version of the web application).
If not and thus if both the application and the database versions are maintained in sync, then I'd just use the information stored in the database.
As a general rule, I would have both, DB version and application version. The problem here is how "private" is the database. If the database is "private" to the application, and user never modifies the schema then your initial solution is fine. In my experience, databases which accumulate several years of data stop being private, it means that users add a table or two and access data using some reporting tool; from that point on the database is not exclusively used by the application any more.
UPDATE
One more thing to consider is users (application) not being able to connect to the DB and calling for support. For this case it would be better to have version, etc.. stored on file system.
Assuming there are no compelling reasons to go with one approach or the other, I think I'd go with keeping them in the database.
I'd put them in both places. Then when running your about function you quickly check that they are both the same, and if they aren't you can display extra information about the version mismatch. If they're the same then you will only need to display one of them.
I've generally found users can do "clever" things like revert databases back to old versions by manually copying directories around "because they can" so defensively dealing with it is always a good idea.
We are currently reviewing how we store our database scripts (tables, procs, functions, views, data fixes) in subversion and I was wondering if there is any consensus as to what is the best approach?
Some of the factors we'd need to consider include:
Should we checkin 'Create' scripts or checkin incremental changes with 'Alter' scripts
How do we keep track of the state of the database for a given release
It should be easy to build a database from scratch for any given release version
Should a table exist in the database listing the scripts that have run against it, or the version of the database etc.
Obviously it's a pretty open ended question, so I'm keen to hear what people's experience has taught them.
After a few iterations, the approach we took was roughly like this:
One file per table and per stored procedure. Also separate files for other things like setting up database users, populating look-up tables with their data.
The file for a table starts with the CREATE command and a succession of ALTER commands added as the schema evolves. Each of these commands is bracketed in tests for whether the table or column already exists. This means each script can be run in an up-to-date database and won't change anything. It also means that for any old database, the script updates it to the latest schema. And for an empty database the CREATE script creates the table and the ALTER scripts are all skipped.
We also have a program (written in Python) that scans the directory full of scripts and assembles them in to one big script. It parses the SQL just enough to deduce dependencies between tables (based on foreign-key references) and order them appropriately. The result is a monster SQL script that gets the database up to spec in one go. The script-assembling program also calculates the MD5 hash of the input files, and uses that to update a version number that is written in to a special table in the last script in the list.
Barring accidents, the result is that the database script for a give version of the source code creates the schema this code was designed to interoperate with. It also means that there is a single (somewhat large) SQL script to give to the customer to build new databases or update existing ones. (This was important in this case because there would be many instances of the database, one for each of their customers.)
There is an interesting article at this link:
https://blog.codinghorror.com/get-your-database-under-version-control/
It advocates a baseline 'create' script followed by checking in 'alter' scripts and keeping a version table in the database.
The upgrade script option
Store each change in the database as a separate sql script. Store each group of changes in a numbered folder. Use a script to apply changes a folder at a time and record in the database which folders have been applied.
Pros:
Fully automated, testable upgrade path
Cons:
Hard to see full history of each individual element
Have to build a new database from scratch, going through all the versions
I tend to check in the initial create script. I then have a DbVersion table in my database and my code uses that to upgrade the database on initial connection if necessary. For example, if my database is at version 1 and my code is at version 3, my code will apply the ALTER statements to bring it to version 2, then to version 3. I use a simple fallthrough switch statement for this.
This has the advantage that when you deploy a new version of your application, it will automatically upgrade old databases and you never have to worry about the database being out of sync with the software. It also maintains a very visible change history.
This isn't a good idea for all software, but variations can be applied.
You could get some hints by reading how this is done with Ruby On Rails' migrations.
The best way to understand this is probably to just try it out yourself, and then inspecting the database manually.
Answers to each of your factors:
Store CREATE scripts. If you want to checkout version x.y.z then it'd be nice to simply run your create script to setup the database immediately. You could add ALTER scripts as well to go from the previous version to the next (e.g., you commit version 3 which contains a version 3 CREATE script and a version 2 → 3 alter script).
See the Rails migration solution. Basically they keep the table version number in the database, so you always know.
Use CREATE scripts.
Using version numbers would probably be the most generic solution — script names and paths can change over time.
My two cents!
We create a branch in Subversion and all of the database changes for the next release are scripted out and checked in. All scripts are repeatable so you can run them multiple times without error.
We also link the change scripts to issue items or bug ids so we can hold back a change set if needed. We then have an automated build process that looks at the issue items we are releasing and pulls the change scripts from Subversion and creates a single SQL script file with all of the changes sorted appropriately.
This single file is then used to promote the changes to the Test, QA and Production environments. The automated build process also creates database entries documenting the version (branch plus build id.) We think this is the best approach with enterprise developers. More details on how we do this can be found HERE
The create script option:
Use create scripts that will build you the latest version of the database from scratch, which is empty except the default lookup data.
Use standard version control techniques to store,branch,tag versions and view histories of your objects.
When upgrading a live database (where you don't want to loose data), create a blank second copy of the database at the new version and use a tool like red-gate's link text
Pros:
Changes to files are tracked in a standard source-code like manner
Cons:
Reliance on manual use of a 3rd party tool to do actual upgrades (no/little automation)
Our company checks them in simply because someone decided to put it in some SOX document that we do. It makes no sense to me at all, except possible as a reference document. I can't see a time we'd pull them out and try and use them again, and if we did we'd have to know which one ran first and which one to run after which. Backing up the database is much more important then keeping the Alter scripts.
for every release we need to give one update.sql file which contains all the new table scripts, alter statements, new/modified packages,roles,etc. This file is used to upgrade the database from 1 version to 2.
What ever we include in update.sql file above one all this statements need to go to individual respective files. like alter statement has to go to table as a new column (table script has to be modifed not Alter statement is added after create table script in the file) in the same way new tables, roles etc.
So whenever if user wants to upgrade he will use the first update.sql file to upgrade.
If he want to build from scrach then he will use the build.sql which already having all the above statements, it makes the database in sync.
sriRamulu
Sriramis4u#yahoo.com
In my case, I build a SH script for this work: https://github.com/reduardo7/db-version-updater
How is an open question
In my case I am trying to create something simple that is easy to use for developers and I do it under the following scheme
Things I tested:
File-based script handling in git using GitlabCI
It does not work, collisions are created and the Administration part has to be done by hand in case of disaster and the development part is too complicated
Use of permissions and access via mysql clients
There is no traceability on changes to the database and the transition to production is manual
Use of programs mentioned here
They require uploading the structures and many adaptations and usually you end up with change control just like the word
Repository usage
Could not control the DRP part
I could not properly control the backups
I don't think it is a good idea to have the backups on the same server and you generate high lasgs for the process
This was what worked best
Manage permissions per user and generate traceability of everything that is sent to the database
Multi platform
Use of development-Production-QA database
Always support before each modification
Manage an open repository for change control
Multi-server
Deactivate / Activate access to the web page or App through Endpoints
the initial project is in:
In case the comment manager reads this part, I understand the self-promotion but please just remove this part and leave the rest since I think it complies with the answer to the question reacted in the post ...
https://hub.docker.com/r/arelis/gitdb
I hope this reaches you since I see that several
There is an interesting article with new URL at: https://blog.codinghorror.com/get-your-database-under-version-control/
It a bit old but the concepts are still there. Good Read!
Can anyone provide some real examples as to how best to keep script files for views, stored procedures and functions in a SVN (or other) repository.
Obviously one solution is to have the script files for all the different components in a directory or more somewhere and simply using TortoiseSVN or the like to keep them in SVN, Then whenever a change is to be made I load the script up in Management Studio etc. I don't really want this.
What I'd really prefer is some kind of batch script that I can run periodically (nightly?) that would export all the stored procedures / views etc that had changed in a given timeframe and then commit them to SVN.
Ideas?
Sounds like you're not wanting to use Revision Control properly, to me.
Obviously one solution is to have the
script files for all the different
components in a directory or more
somewhere and simply using TortoiseSVN
or the like to keep them in SVN
This is what should be done. You would have your local copy you are working on (Developing new, Tweaking old, etc) and as single components/procedures/etc get finished, you would commit them individually until you have to start the process over.
Committing half-done code just because it's been 'X' time since it was last committed is sloppy and guaranteed to cause anyone else using the repository grief.
I find it best to treat Stored Procedures just like any other compilable code: Code lives in the repository, you check it out to make changes and load it in your development tool to compile or deploy the code.
You can create a batch file and schedule it:
delete the contents of your scripts directory
using something like ExportSQLScript to export all objects to script/scripts
svn commit
Please note: That although you'll have the objects under source control, you'll not have the data or it's progression (is that a renamed field, or 1 new field and 1 deleted?).
This approach is fine for maintaining change history. But, of course, you should never be automatically committing to the "production build" (unless you like broken builds).
Although you didn't ask for it: This approach also won't produce a set of scripts that will upgrade a current DB. You'll only have initial creation scripts. Recording data progression and creation upgrade scripts is beyond basic source control systems.
I'd recommend Redgate SQL Compare for this - it allows you to compare database versions and generate change scripts - it's also fairly easily scriptable.
Based on your expanded question, you really want to use DDL triggers. Check out this article that details how to create a changelog system for your database.
Not sure on your price range, however DB Ghost could be an option for you.
I don't work for this company (or own the product) but in my researching of the same issue, this product looked quite promising.
I should've been a little more descriptive. The database in question is for an internal ERP system and thus we don't have many versions of our database, just Production/Testing/Development. When we've done a change request, some new fancy feature or something, we simply execute a script or series of scripts to update the procedures in question on the Testing database, if that is all good, then we do the same to Production.
So I'm not really after a full schema script per se, just something that can keep track of the various edits to the stored procedures over time. For example, PROCESS_INVOICE does stuff. It gets updated in some minor way in March. Some time later in say May it is discovered that in a rare case customers get double invoiced (or some other crazy corner case). I'd like to be able to see what has happened over time to this procedure. Currently the way the development environment is setup here I don't have that, which I'm trying to change.
I can recommend DBPro which is part of Visual Studio Team Edition. Have been using it for a few months for storing all parts of the database in Team Foundation Server as well as for deployment and database compares, etc.
Of course, as someone else mentioned, it does depend on your environment and price range.
I wrote a utility for dumping all of the relevant parts of my db into a directory structure that I use SVN on. I never got around to trying to incorporate it into the Manager but, if you're interested, it's here: http://www.reluctantdba.com/dbas-and-programmers/sqltools/svnforsql2005.aspx
It's free and, since I regularly run it, you know any bugs get fixed quickly.
You can always try integrating SourceSafe with SQL Server. Here's a quick start : link . To work with it you've got to have Managment Studio Developers Edition.
I'm considering using Django for a project I'm starting (fyi, a browser-based game) and one of the features I'm liking the most is using syncdb to automatically create the database tables based on the Django models I define (a feature that I can't seem to find in any other framework).
I was already thinking this was too good to be true when I saw this in the documentation:
Syncdb will not alter existing tables
syncdb will only create tables for models which have not yet been installed. It will never issue ALTER TABLE statements to match changes made to a model class after installation. Changes to model classes and database schemas often involve some form of ambiguity and, in those cases, Django would have to guess at the correct changes to make. There is a risk that critical data would be lost in the process.
If you have made changes to a model and wish to alter the database tables to match, use the sql command to display the new SQL structure and compare that to your existing table schema to work out the changes.
It seems that altering existing tables will have to be done "by hand".
What I would like to know is the best way to do this. Two solutions come to mind:
As the documentation suggests, make the changes manually in the DB;
Do a backup of the database, wipe it, create the tables again (with syncdb, since now it's creating the tables from scratch) and import the backed-up data (this might take too long if the database is big)
Any ideas?
Manually doing the SQL changes and dump/reload are both options, but you may also want to check out some of the schema-evolution packages for Django. The most mature options are django-evolution and South.
EDIT: And hey, here comes dmigrations.
UPDATE: Since this answer was originally written, django-evolution and dmigrations have both ceased active development and South has become the de-facto standard for schema migration in Django. Parts of South may even be integrated into Django within the next release or two.
UPDATE: A schema-migrations framework based on South (and authored by Andrew Godwin, author of South) is included in Django 1.7+.
As noted in other answers to the same topic, be sure to watch the DjangoCon 2008 Schema Evolution Panel on YouTube.
Also, two new projects on the map: Simplemigrations and Migratory.
One good way to do this is via fixtures, particularly the initial_data fixtures.
A fixture is a collection of files that contain the serialized contents of the database. So it's like having a backup of the database but as it's something Django is aware of it's easier to use and will have additional benefits when you come to do things like unit testing.
You can create a fixture from the data currently in your DB using django-admin.py dumpdata. By default the data is in JSON format, but other options such as XML are available. A good place to store fixtures is a fixtures sub-directory of your application directories.
You can load a fixure using django-admin.py loaddata but more significantly, if your fixture has a name like initial_data.json it will be automatically loaded when you do a syncdb, saving the trouble of importing it yourself.
Another benefit is that when you run manage.py test to run your Unit Tests the temporary test database will also have the Initial Data Fixture loaded.
Of course, this will work when when you're adding attributes to models and columns to the DB. If you drop a column from the Database you'll need to update your fixture to remove the data for that column which might not be straightforward.
This works best when doing lots of little database changes during development. For updating production DBs a manually generated SQL script can often work best.
I've been using django-evolution. Caveats include:
Its automatic suggestions have been uniformly rotten; and
Its fingerprint function returns different values for the same database on different platforms.
That said, I find the custom schema_evolution.py approach handy. To work around the fingerprint problem, I suggest code like:
BEFORE = 'fv1:-436177719' # first fingerprint
BEFORE64 = 'fv1:-108578349625146375' # same, but on 64-bit Linux
AFTER = 'fv1:-2132605944'
AFTER64 = 'fv1:-3559032165562222486'
fingerprints = [
BEFORE, AFTER,
BEFORE64, AFTER64,
]
CHANGESQL = """
/* put your SQL code to make the changes here */
"""
evolutions = [
((BEFORE, AFTER), CHANGESQL),
((BEFORE64, AFTER64), CHANGESQL)
]
If I had more fingerprints and changes, I'd re-factor it. Until then, making it cleaner would be stealing development time from something else.
EDIT: Given that I'm manually constructing my changes anyway, I'll try dmigrations next time.
django-command-extensions is a django library that gives some extra commands to manage.py. One of them is sqldiff, which should give you the sql needed to update to your new model. It is, however, listed as 'very experimental'.
So far in my company we have used the manual approach. What works best for you depends very much on your development style.
We generally have not so many schema changes in production systems and somewhat formalized rollouts from development to production servers. Whenever we roll out (10-20 times a year) we do a fill diff of the current and the upcoming production branch reviewing all the code and noting what has to be changed on the production server. The required changes might be additional dependencies, changes to the settings file and changes to the database.
This works very well for us. Having it all automated is a niche vision but to difficult for us - maybe we could manage migrations but we still would need to handle additional library, server, whatever dependencies.
Django 1.7 (currently in development) is adding native support for schema migration with manage.py migrate and manage.py makemigrations (migrate deprecates syncdb).