Permalink
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
176 lines (146 sloc) 9.12 KB
layout title
post
Keep database deploys separate

Context

A while ago, I tweeted that you shouldn’t deploy database migrations at the same time as your app code. I thought I’d write something about why I feel this way, and the situations where I feel strongest about this.

This post has the structure of an Architecture Decision Record, because context matters. I think ADRs are an excellent way to force you to think about the context in which you make a decision, and I’m hoping to use the format to think about the context in which my recommendation applies.

The team that this recommendation applies most to has the following things going on:

  1. You are building a user-facing application, quite probably a web app for consumption by a browser or mobile native application.
  2. You have enough users that, whenever you deploy, most likely someone is using the app. Therefore, you employ techniques to deploy your app with zero downtime, such as deploying one app server at a time rather than all at once.
  3. You deploy your app multiple times a week (possibly even multiple times a day).
  4. You don’t have maintenance windows (for deployments or otherwise).

Many teams, having read the Continuous Delivery book, will set up an automated deployment pipeline to ensure there is a clear, repeatable path for incremental code changes to go through various testing stages and end up in production. As part of this, they are probably using a database migration tool (such as liquibase or active record migrations) so that the database schema and data structure can be incrementally updated as the application is worked on. And in the final step of the deployment pipeline, the latest code and migrations are deployed to production in a single deployment stage.

I anticipate problems with this setup.

The main issue is that database migrations are inherently riskier types of change than code changes. Problems with database migrations might only show up when you deploy to production, for a number of reasons.

A migration’s success is contingent on what data existed in the database previously. Development databases are often routinely emptied out between tests. You can trivially add a column with a constraint to an empty table, but a single record will cause the migration to fail. More complex migrations involving rewriting data from one form to another (string to int, or int to date) might fail on corner cases that only show up in “real world” data. More mundanely, a database migration might perform a lot of updates all at once, suddenly filling up a disk.

Another problem with a production (or production-like) environment, that often doesn’t appear in development environments, is that you will at some point end up with an active user hitting a new version of your app while the old version of the database schema is still active (or vice versa). You are doing deployments in a way that avoids downtime, and whichever way you do it, you will have concurrent active requests hitting old and new code. Development and testing environments often don’t cover this case, because tests are run between deploys rather than during them, and so code is often not tested for schema backwards- or forwards-compatibility. In an environment where developers don’t see the hazards with creating commits which atomically change code and schema, they will do so, causing problems only when people try to use the system during a deploy.

A final issue is that database changes are much harder to back out than code changes. There’s often no “reverse” migration script available. Even if you have written code to reverse the migration, you might not trust it, especially if there was a problem with the forward migration script. Even if the reverse migration was automatically generated, you might have irrevocably lost data already. (This is not an absolute rule: code changes can also lose data; but their risk profile is lower. It’s easier to lose data on a mass scale with an UPDATE IN statement than in a simple web request handler.)

Decision

We will not deploy database changes in the same step as code changes.

This means that a single deploy pipeline stage should not deploy both code and data without a manual trigger in between the two. Each deploy should be smoke tested, to test that a code change without a data change doesn’t break anything, and similarly a data change without a code change also doesn’t change anything.

This setup means that every step of the deployment process is verifying the backwards- and forwards-compatibility of your code against your database schema.

There are a number of ways of achieving this. One simple change you could do is change your deployment steps to deploy code or migrations, based on a parameter in the build. I have seen this work successfully for GOV.UK’s deployments – their deployment step template has a parameter for code or migrations.

Another way would be to have totally separate deployment pipelines for code and migrations. To the code deployment pipeline, the database becomes an external dependency (like any third-party service). Then database deployments can be explicitly scheduled on a slower cadence, such as weekly. John Allspaw has described this approach at etsy and flickr (see below).

A very low-tech way to do this would be simply to have a convention that releases can either contain database changes or code changes, but not both, and rely on code review or release management to catch contraventions.

Note that there are several things that are important to keep, even as we separate out code and database deployments:

  • database schemas should be built from a source-controlled definition, not hand-crafted
  • database schemas should be managed using a migration tool
  • database schemas should be deployed using a deployment pipeline, testing changes first in development and testing environments before being run in production

Consequences

Developers will have to adapt to this environment, and understand both that database changes are considered riskier, and that if they want to introduce database changes, they will have to consider how to orchestrate the rollout. A typical scenario would involve three steps: first, release a new app which can support the new schema when it arrives; second, deploy the database migration; third, release a new app that removes the old code for compatibility with the old schema.

This is what developers should be doing anyway, because otherwise their code will cause problems for users when deployed to production. However in practice they either don’t do this phased rollout, or they sometimes forget. Under the new system, if they don’t write forwards-compatible code changes, their code deployments will fail smoke tests. As a result, there should be fewer instances of failures in production due to mismatched code and schema versions.

Database changes will become more expensive to push through the pipeline. This is by design, but it does mean that there is a risk of perverse behaviour such as writing fixes in code because it’s easier, when a fix in the database would be more correct.

This change will not fix everything about database migration riskiness. Trying to update every record in a large table to add a new column will still be slow and fraught.

A brief survey of other people’s views

I think it’s worth reviewing other people’s thoughts and experiences here too. Many smart people seem to disagree with me, including the Continuous Delivery authors.

InfoQ recently published an article about including database migrations in the deployment pipeline, although I actually agree with most of the points they make: database schemas should be defined in source-controlled code, using a migration tool, and deployed as part of a pipeline. The schema should be defined by the application team, not a separate DBA team. The benefits of automation are incontrovertible. The only thing I disagree on is that code and database changes should not be deployed in the same automated step.

On the flip side, John Allspaw has tweeted: Decoupling schema changes from deployment of the code making use of those changes had huge advantages at Etsy. He has spoken about this in this interview by Jez Humble. People ask him “if you deploy 50 times a day, how do you change the database 50 times a day?” and his answer is “well, you don’t”. At flickr, they had a window every other Tuesday to do database changes.