I created a database for tracking metrics, with some automation tricks (email, .doc,.ppt presentations, etc) with a very large Main-table, and lots of forms/GUI. This is the first time I have ever I worried about an MDE/front-end for the thing. So if you would be so kind to answer a few questions, or offer any advice, it would be greatly appreciated (I would hate for all this work to not be utilized).
What is the first thing I need to do? It the 2000 version that must be converted to 03 to create the MDE, but does that get done before I use the database splitter?
Will the amount of objects in the database effect the ability to do this? I have something like 80 forms, 70 queries, 20+ macros, 12 tables, etc...but does the amount of objects prevent some of this from working well once the front end is there?
when i split the database, can I continue to work/make changes and such on the "back end", and have those changes directly effect the front end?
These may be some basic questions, but I don't know the answer so.....Thanks!
Here is my 2 ¢.
Question 1 - I have never used the database splitter as I feel I have more control doing it manually. If you do it manually you can do it to a version that does not have a database splitter. But if you do use the splitter then--yes--you will have to upgrade to a version that has a splitter before doing it.
To do it manually here are the steps.
Backup everything.
Create a copy of your file into the same directory. So if you have an MyApp.MDB create a copy into the same directory with a new name, such as MyAppDATA.mdb.
Open the new DATA file (MyAppDATA.mdb) and delete all of the objects EXCEPT the TABLES.
Open the App file (MyApp.mdb) and delete all of the tables.
Also in MyApp.mdb...go to the File/Get External Data/Link Tables menu to link the tables in MyAppDATA.mdb to MyApp.mdb. Select All and create the links.
That should do it. And if you screw up you made a backup...right?
A couple of tips and gotchas...be sure that you go to Tools/Options and that you are NOT showing System and Hidden tables. You just don't want to delete system tables from MyApp. Another way to do it is do NOT delete tables that start with MSys or USys.
Question 2 - Does not matter how many object you have. In fact you don't have that many objects anyway.
Question 3 - Yes...you will make backend changes in MyAppData.mdb and when you open MyApp.mdb those changes will auto-magically be there to see and query against etc. (In the query designer you may need to save/close/reopen to see new fields if you made the mod while in the query). The EXCEPTION to that is New Tables You will have to use the File/Get External Data/Link Tables option to create links to new tables.
One thing to remember (and that I hope you already realize) is that the one downside of splitting the database is that when you deploy the front end file that usually the relative path to the data will vary from machine to machine and there is no automatic re-linking of tables in access. If your target clients have full access you can always use Tools/Database Utilities/Linked Table Manager to refresh the links to the right location. If you can't do that then you will have to do one of the following:
1. Write code that does the automatic re-linking for you. Basically it will check the links...if invalid it will prompt the user for the data location (or look it up in an INI file) and re-link the tables.
2. Always deploy your app to the same location on all machines. If you have commercial visions for your application this won't work...I mention it for academic reasons. It might be doable for a limited deployment where you have a lot of control over file placement on each machine.
3. Put the Data file (MyAppDATA.mdb) onto a network share and link the table across the network using a drive mapping or UNC (\myserver\mydata\ApplicationData\MyAppData.mdb). The latter is preferred but both of them run the same risks as number two.
Seth
PS This answer assumes Access 2003.
PPS If you have commercial visions for your application then the table linking has got to be REALLY robust.
PPPS I agree with the commenter that you may want to take the plunge and do SQL if it is in your skill set.
One thing that hasn't been discussed, and that's the issue of whether the compile to MDE could fail. Basically, if your code compiles in your front-end MDB, it will convert to an MDE. But I've noticed that lots of people never compile.
Some hints for keeping your VBA code in good shape:
in VBE options, turn off COMPILE ON DEMAND.
add the COMPILE button to your standard VBE toolbar and USE IT OFTEN.
periodically, backup your MDB and decompile/recompile it.
Also, remember that you must keep the MDB source, as the VBA code is not editable in an MDE and not recoverable by any good method.
EDIT:
Steps for a decompile:
backup your MDB.
start an instance of Access with the /decompile commandline argument. For, instance, I have a shortcut on my deskstop that has this as the target:
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSACCESS.EXE" /decompile
having opened that instance of Access, open the MDB you want to decompile. You will see nothing happen. DO NOTHING FURTHER IN THIS INSTANCE OF ACCESS -- close this instance of Access (the reason for this is that Michael Kaplan, who knows a thing or two about this, recommended that you never do any work in an Access instance opened with the decompile switch because he said there was no guarantee that the Access application code executed under those circumstances in a way that was fully safe for all kinds of Access work).
open the just-decompiled MDB holding down the shift key (you want to be sure that startup routines don't run because that would likely recompile the product before you've finished your cleanup) and compact the MDB (holding down the shift key again).
open the code editor and compile the project (DEBUG -> COMPILE [db name] for those who haven't step #2 in my original compiling instructions at the top of the post before the edit).
compact the MDB (doesn't matter if you bypass startup, since it's already fully compiled).
Why so many steps?
Because the purpose of the decompile is to get rid of the compiled p-code in order to start afresh from the canonical VBA code. Following the steps above insures that you have completely cleared the data pages storing the compiled code before you recompile. The reason for this is that without the compact step after the decompile, under some very rare circumstances, the code can behave strangely. I can't imagine that the old discarded p-code is being used again, but there's something about the pointers between the canonical code and the compiled code that apparently doesn't get completely flushed by a decompile without a compact.
This would be a comment to Seth's answer, but my rep isn't high enough to comment yet.
Seth did a great job answering your questions, I just wanted to add a bit more to part #1 about using the Database Splitter. The Database Splitter in the Tools menu works fine. Doing it manually is alright too, but it's a whole lot faster and easier to use the Database Splitter. I've used it a dozen times and never encountered any issues after using it.
http://www.databasedev.co.uk/split_a_database.html has a decent page about some of the pros, cons of splitting your database.
http://www.accessmvp.com/TWickerath/articles/multiuser.htm also has some good info when dealing with a split database in a multi-user environment.
Seth gave you a very good answer. But I'll add a few comments.
The number of objects only becomes relevant when you get close to about 1000 forms, reports and modules which have code. There's a limit about there. If you do get that message when trying to make an MDE then you almost certainly have a code error and need to compile to find the error
Another resource is "Splitting your app into a front end and back end Tips"
See the Auto FE Updater downloads page to make the process of distributing new FEs relatively painless.. The utility also supports Terminal Server/Citrix quite nicely.
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.
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!