Re: patterns for database administration

On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:

>> One of the reasons this idea was suggested was because my client is
>> concerned that its "crazy" to be modifying business data in a system
>> that is running and processing purchase transactions.  And I'm
>> wondering whether or not this is even a concern when most people build
>> this type of application.  I think its going to be painful to keep
>> track of changes between the two databases (or schemas if you prefer).
>> It sounds like this would be highly prone to errors and cause more
>> problems than it solves.
>>    Thoughts?
>
> It sounds like the problem they have is that they want you to be able
> to
> make changes, but perhaps not make them active until they are all
> finished.  Is that what the problem is?
>
> This can be solved in a number of ways.  You can mark records as
> "testing", and then have an approval step which copies the testing
> records
> over the production records.  You can also have an "active date" on
> your
> records, and then mark your records as being active in the future.

Indeed we're already doing that.

> I think we need more information on the "whys" of this before making
> clearer suggestions.

I agree completely.  Unfortunately I don't have anything more concrete
to go on than my previous post above.    I think the "whys" are
extremely weak.  I'm going to suggest we leave things as they are and
allow the administration application to update the production database.
   Thanks,
    -M@