On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 6:28:38 PM UTC-8, Fred Joe wrote: > > You're too kind. I'm thinking about going with option 2 due to the > cleanliness in my opinion. Tho it may require more booze as input to the > process. It would be easier to make new development databases directly > from Sequel. Which by the way, 0 open bugs for as long as I can remember! > Well done. Quite amazing. More software should be like that. > > So if I go this route: > > > http://sequel.jeremyevans.net/rdoc/files/doc/migration_rdoc.html#label-Dumping+the+current+schema+as+a+migration > > and of course validate that the schema that comes out actually does create > 100% properly in a new blank database. Should I just manually insert a > schema version of 1 into the existing production database and then start > with version 2 for new changes? I realize logically this makes sense, but > I want to make sure I don't violate the intent of the author. >
I think that's probably the best way to do it, if you want to convert your existing schema to a Sequel migration. The best way to check for the same result would be something like: pg_dump -s production_database > pd.sql pg_dump -s test_sequel_database > td.sql diff -u td.sql pd.sql and iterate on your Sequel migration until the diff is small enough that you don't care about the remaining differences. Thanks, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
