Re: Schema version control

We have this kickass solution we built at work called dbsteward that
just takes care of all of this for us, automatically. You just give
it the new version and the old version and it generates update statements
to feed into PG.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that we're working to release
dbsteward as open source for PGCon. So, if you can wait a bit, you
can jump on that train.

In response to Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>:

> On 2/10/2011 3:38 PM, Royce Ausburn wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My company is having trouble managing how we upgrade schema changes across many versions of our software. I imagine this is a common problem and there're probably some neat solutions that we don't know about.
> >
> > For the last 10 years we have been writing bash shell scripts essentially numbered in order db0001, db0002, db0003.... The number represents the schema version which is recorded in the database and updated by the shell scripts. We have a template that provides all the functionality we need, we just copy the script and fill in the blanks. The schema upgrade scripts are committed to svn along with the software changes, and we have a process when installing the software at a site that runs the scripts on the DB in order before starting up the new version of the software.
> >
> > This has worked really well so far. But we've effectively only had one version of the software in development at any time. We're now in the habit of branching the software to form releases to promote stability when making large changes. The idea is that only really important changes are merged in to the releases. This introduces a bit of a problem when some change needs to be merged from one release to another. The typical problem is that we might have two versions of the software 10.0 at schema version 10057 and 11.0 at 11023 and we need to merge an important bug fix from schema 11023 in to 10.0. The issue is that 11023 might depend upon changes introduced in the schema versions before it. Or 11023 might introduce changes that cause later scripts to break (11000 - 11023) when upgrading from 10.0 to 11.0.
> >
> > One potential solution is to require that schema changes are never merged in to a release, but of course sometimes business requires we do =(
> >
> > I'm really interested to hear how you guys manage schema upgrades in the face of branches and upgrading from many different versions of the database.
> >
> > I've been reading http://pyrseas.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/version-control-part-2-sql-databases/ but I have a feeling that this blog post won't address branches.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > --Royce
> >
> >
>
> So, 10.0 at 10057.
> 11.0 at 11023.
>
> then 10.1 needs some fixes so db is bumped to 10058.
>
> Then, later, you can upgrade 10057 to 11023, but you cant get 10058 to
> 11023.
>
> Humm... maybe you need smarter upgrade scripts? Would having logic in
> the script help? Something like:
>
> if not fieldExists('xyz) then alter table ... add xyz ...
>
>
>
> Or, maybe your schema numbering system is to broad? Maybe each table
> could have a version number?
>
>
> Or some kinda flags like:
> create table dbver(key text);
>
> then an update would be named: "add xyz to bob".
>
> then the update code:
>
> q = select key from dbver where key = 'add xyz to bob';
> if q.eof then
> alter table bob add xyz
>
>
> -Andy
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/