Declarative migrations are getting real traction, but the old habit of shipping new SQL files still dominates many shops. The debate centers on whether you can evolve schemas declaratively without losing visibility or history. People want safer rollouts and clearer diffs [1].
Problem with separate SQL migrations Two big pains show up. First, views can't be altered—instead you redefine the whole view, which hides what actually changed. Second, you end up duplicating history: git diffs plus a separate migration log, which makes audits messier. This fragmentation makes rollouts and rollbacks harder to coordinate [1].
AtlasGo as a real-world alternative People point to AtlasGo as a real-world example of declarative or centralized migration ideas. The post notes it's not affiliated with them and that the concept has already been implemented elsewhere [1].
What teams should watch Teams wrestling with production drift are weighing how migration tooling handles changes, visibility, and rollback. The debate affects deploy velocity and auditability in complex schemas [1].
AtlasGo and similar ideas are nudging schema migrations toward a more declarative future [1].
References
Declarative database schema migrations – yay or nay?
Discusses declarative migrations; problems with separate SQL files, view alterations, and git-based history; notes AtlasGo approach as alternative for teams.
View source