| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Schema version control |
| Date: | 2011-02-10 22:59:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20110210175930.70795371.wmoran@potentialtech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
In response to Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Top-posting is frowned upon by some (not me), but since Bill started it...
Oops ... the weird thing is that I'm usually really anal about not top-
posting ...
> I for one will be waiting to see your dbsteward. How does it compare
> functionally or stylistically with Ruby's migration tools (which I found
> to be pretty cool and frustrating all in one go).
I'm not familiar with Ruby's migration tools, so I can't say much.
The overview:
You store your schema and data as XML (this is easy to migrate to, because
it includes a tool that makes the XML from a live database)
Keep your XML schema files in some RCS.
When it's time for a new deployment, you run the dbsteward tool against
the schema XML and it turns it into DDL and DML.
When it's time for an upgrade, you run the dbsteward tool against two
schema XML files, and it calculates what has changed and generates the
appropriate DDL and DML to upgrade.
So ... you know, however that compares with the Ruby stuff is how it
does.
--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2011-02-10 23:02:16 | Re: Schema version control |
| Previous Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2011-02-10 22:59:13 | Re: Schema version control |