I'm trying to use Flyway to version the database of a modular application. Each module has its own separate set of tables, and migration scripts that will control the versioning of that set of tables.
Flyway allows me to specify a different metadata table for each module - this way I can version each module independently. When I try to upgrade the application, I run a migration process for each module, each with its own table and set of scripts. Note that these tables are all in the same schema.
However, when I try to migrate my application, the first migration is the only one that works. Subsequent migrations fail with the following exception: org.flywaydb.core.api.FlywayException: Found non-empty schema(s) "public" without metadata table! Use baseline() or set baselineOnMigrate to true to initialize the metadata table.
If I create the metadata table for each module manually, migrations for each module work correctly. Creating the table myself rather than having Flyway create it for me seems like a hack to work around a problem, rather than a solution in itself.
Is this a valid way of managing multiple sets of tables independently, or is there a better way of doing this? Is it a valid approach to create the metadata table myself?
I think you need to baseline each module before performing the migrate. You'll need to pass the table option to override schema_version for each module eg
flyway.table=schema_version_module1
. As the error message suggests you can also baselineOnMigrate however that is warned against in the docs (https://flywaydb.org/documentation/commandline/migrate).We are considering a similar approach with another schema_version table to apply and log data fixes that cannot be rolled out to every environment cleanly.
I have a similar situation, wherein I have two schemas (master & tenant), flyway works fine if those are separate MYSQL DB/SCHEMA, but for the case wherein I want both to be run against the same DB (which could be SQL Server, ORACLE). FLyway fails.
An ideal solution for you would be to split your modules into schemas. This gives you an effective unit of isolation per module and is also a natural fit for modular applications (modules completely isolated and self managing), rather than dumping everything into a single schema (especially public). eg
Your second option is to remain using the public schema to host all tables, but use an individual schema for each
schema_version
. This is less refactoring effort but certainly a less elegant design than that mentioned above. eg