I'm a consultant. That means I have to deal with whatever I come across at customer sites. I can recommend change, but when I'm called in to fix something, I generally don't get to insist on it. I just have to get something fixed. That means dealing with developers (if they exist) and with DBAs, and making sure that anything that I try to fix somehow works for both sides. That means I often have to deal with the realm of DevOps, whether or not the customer knows it.
DevOps is the idea of having a development story which improves operations.
Traditionally, developers would develop code without thinking much about operations. They'd get some new code ready, deploy it somehow, and hope it didn't break much. And the Operations team would brace themselves for a ton of pain, and start pushing back on change, and be seen as a "BOFH", and everyone would be happy. I still see these kinds of places, although for the most part, people try to get along.
With DevOps, the idea is that developers work in a way that means that things don't break.
I know, right.
If you're doing the DevOps things at your organisation, you're saying "Yup, that's normal." If you're not, you're probably saying "Ha – like that's ever going to happen."
But let me assure you – it can. For years now, developers have been doing Continuous Integration, Test-Driven Development, Automated Builds, and more. I remember seeing these things demonstrated at TechEd conferences in the middle of the last decade.
But somehow, these things are still considered 'new' in the database world. Database developers look at TDD and say "It's okay for a stateless environment, but my database changes state with every insert, update, or delete. By its very definition, it's stateful."
The idea that a stored procedure with particular parameters should have a specific impact on a table that particular characteristics (values and statistics – I would assume structure and indexes would be a given) isn't unreasonable. And it's this that can lead to the understanding that whilst a database is far from stateless, state can be a controllable thing. Various states can become part of various tests: does the result still apply when there are edge-case rows in the table?; is the execution plan suitable when there are particular statistics in play?; is the amount of blocking reasonable when the number of transactions is at an extreme level?
Test-driven development is a lot harder in the database-development world than in the web-development world. But it's certainly not unreasonable, and to have confidence that changes won't be breaking changes, it's certainly worthwhile.
The investment to implement a full test suite for a database can be significant, depending on how thorough it needs to be. But it can be an incremental thing. Elements such as source control ought to be put in place first, but there is little reason why database development shouldn't adhere to DevOps principles.