> What does git history has to do with the database?
Hopefully a lot. Non-versioned database schemas are the devil.
Hopefully a lot. Non-versioned database schemas are the devil.
I tried to think about it from a gitflow release cycle perspective to be generous. This would mean constant churn of migration code for each branch of the repo.
If you have complex migrations which go beyond simply renaming columns, it would require you to write special migration code on a release branch which would then need to be merged back. yuck!
Hopefully I have cleared that up.
Facebook, who operate one of the largest relational database fleets in the world, have used declarative schema management company-wide for nearly a decade. If engineered well, you end up with a system that allows developers to change schemas easily without needing any DBA intervention.
I viewed the author as targeting smaller dev shops who don't have a dedicated DBA/expert. Groups who might use an ORM's migration framework for example. In which case, it would appear that there is significant loss in migration flexibility if you remove application code from the architecture.
For example, say you need to populate a new column based on data in other columns, across an entire table. If the table is a billion rows, you can't safely run this as a single DML query. It will take too long to run and be disruptive to applications, given the locking impact; it will cause excessive journaling due to the huge transaction; there can be MVCC old-row-version-history pileups as well.
Typically companies build custom systems that handle this by splitting up DML into many smaller queries. It's then no longer atomic, which means such a system needs knowledge about application-level consistency assumptions.
Having auto-runnable migrations checked in alongside the code that depends on them allows you to review and test those migrations as part of your normal code review and CI processes.
I think there must be some misunderstanding here because I don't understand why you say either of these things:
> This would mean constant churn of migration code for each branch of the repo.
> it would require you to write special migration code on a release branch
There should only a be at most a few migrations per feature branch and merging is only an issue when you have two feature branches with inconsistent schema definitions. You should only have to add custom migrations to a release branch to fix bugs and those should be merged back into your develop branch as soon as possible to minimize effort spend merging later.