3 ms·

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I was talking about an application and its accompanying database, which would still be paid for and administered by the customer, no

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I was talking about an application and its accompanying database, which would still be paid for and administered by the customer, not a database outside the application which it would be accessing. That still raised many eyebrows.

mooreds 5y ago
I think the GP was assuming the reason sysadmins worry about running DDL is the danger of overwriting/modifying tables the application depends on. If this is the main concern, you could have two databases (or schemas, if your database supports it). One for application configuration/storage that the application never runs DDL on and another for user data, where the tables can be created/modified dynamically. That separation means that, at worst, user data is screwed up if there's a bug in the DDL generation, but the application should still be able to run. At least, that was my read.