I do this as well with projects. It works well if you only have to deploy
to a couple of databases. If you have many databases (>3) then I find the
migrations approach described by Grant works very well.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:15 PM, David Burstin <david.burs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We use SQL Server projects for patching, version controlled with git.
>
> For schema changes, we run a compare on the project and the dev database
> (assuming that is where the schema changes are) and create an upgrade
> script from that.
>
> For actual data changes to be applied, we create separate scripts in the
> sql project specifically for those.
>
> This seems to work pretty well for us. YMMV.
>
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> On 2 November 2015 at 14:53, Grant Castner <gcast...@outlook.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tony,
>> We use dbup (https://dbup.github.io/) - it allows you to create a small
>> visual studio project so that you can track scripts as well as check them
>> in.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Grant
>>
>>
>> Grant Castner
>> Phone: 0458 770 749
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/grantcastner
>> LinkedIn: au.linkedin.com/pub/grant-castner
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:48:56 +1100
>> Subject: Sql Server Patch Scripts
>> From: tonyw...@gmail.com
>> To: ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Almost every system I have developed has been against a SQL Server
>> database, and every environment has needed to be patched as greenfields
>> projects introduce new changes.
>>
>> The reality is that I have found providing patch scripts for sql server
>> quite problematic and have never been very happy about what we do to apply
>> patch scripts.
>>
>> I want to know what scripts have been applied to a database, and I also
>> want to know that scripts applied are transactional (that is, if a script
>> "breaks" when applied, nothing has changed.) I also want to be able to add
>> data to be inserted into tables to my scripts.
>>
>> What are people currently doing to solve these issues?
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Tony
>>
>
>

Reply via email to