News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PostgREST 9.0. Parent comment

Re:PostgREST 9.0 by mhitza on Tuesday November 30, 2021 @05:08AM (#29390617)
> If you don't need anything esoteric, number them in order of application (001-base.sql, 002-add-customer-model.sql, 003-trigger-on-name-update.sql...)

I would just suggest people use database migration tools from the start. This "autoincrement" method breaks down easily when there are multiple developers working on the same project.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PostgREST 9.0 by necovek on Tuesday November 30, 2021 @12:53PM (#29395143)
Sure, though the two obvious problems are solved easily: make developers "reserve" a number ahead of time, and keep a list of applied revisions in the DB table.

I was on a team doing this 15 years ago, and we did some pretty hardcore DB migrations on a large, complex database without any fuss with >30 developers working on it at the same time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PostgREST 9.0 by dllthomas on Tuesday November 30, 2021 @02:31PM (#29396386)
One thought I had is to put the schema in a flat file and put the migration on the commits (with mechanical checking that the two agree). I may've prototyped it at some point, I don't recall - I'm pretty sure I never used it in anger.
[ Parent | on HN ]