HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
sqitchers
sqitch
Perl2012–2024
sqitchers / sqitch

sqitch

Sensible database change management

Data & Databases
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
10Distinct people
10Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3.2KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Sensible database change management

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year10 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2012-10-15 11:54:02 UTC to 2024-12-11 19:42:39 UTC.

012342012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20122013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

10 sources
hobofan·May 10, 2024
Yeah, I fully agree. The tooling for putting that much logic into the database is just not great. I've been decently happy with Sqitch[0] for DB change management, but even with that you don't really get a good basis for testing some of the logic you could otherwise test in isolation in app code. I've also tried to rely heavily on the database handling security and authorization, but as soon as you start to do somewhat non-trivial attribute-/relationship-based authorization (as you would find in many products nowadays), it really isn't fun anymore, and you spend a lot of the time you saved on manually building backend routes on trying to fit you authz model into those basic primitives (and avoiding performance bottlenecks). Especially compared to other modern authz solutions like OPA[1] or oso[2] it really doesn't stack up. [0]: https://g
Read the rest
ithub.com/sqitchers/sqitch [1]: https://www.openpolicyagent.org [2]: https://www.osohq.com
In The API database architecture – Stop writing HTTP-GET endpoints
ocharles·Oct 15, 2012
> WHY would you want to do validation of a "complex" field at the db level? Anything I build on top of this database now benefits from all of my consistency and integrity checks. While it won't prevent me from trying to put bad data in, it will prevent me from actually doing the storage (instead, it will remind me that I'm a terrible human and I forgot to validate certain parts of data). > I mean, for a web app you end up with 3 (!!) layers of validation now: 1. client (javascript), 2. app (...), 3. db (javascript? PL/something?) This is a legitimate concern, but not all applications need all these checks. Hopefully you've abstracted things apart enough so that you can build your application reusing logic where possible. > as an added "bonus", you loose the ability to migrate to a different db I hear this one a lot, and it's so misguided
Read the rest
imo. Different database systems are implemented completely differently. If we strictly adhered to relational algebra and the relational model then we might be in a position where you could switch out databases and have the same performance. However, what we have no doesn't work like that. Even if you strictly use standard SQL, I can almost guarantee that for large databases you'll see difference performance characteristics over the different database implementations. > why don't people keep the rdbms "slim" and mean and write the logic in your app code, where it belongs? That isnt where it belongs at all. Your app should interact with the database, but the database should have the final say in guaranteeing consistency. This provides an excellent foundation that allow you to now layer future projects on top of, without being tied to a specific application framework/library/programming language. Remember, we already have the impedance mismatch so whenever you map from the database to your application, you make a decision about how that mapping is done. So even if you offload all the database stuff to your 'app', you limit yourself to what you can truly do with the database. Seriously, let the database do its job and be a database. > you don't even have version control for the code in stored db procedures and things like that!! This is nonsense. http://pyrseas.projects.postgresql.org/ https://github.com/theory/sqitch https://github.com/depesz/Versioning. Do your research.
In Postgres 9.2 highlight: JSON data type

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.