The .sql files or migrations or whatever else in your repo represents an intent, or contract, defined by your application. But those files aren't the source of truth, the database is the authority. Whether a SQL query is or is not valid is, by definition, something that can only be evaluated at runtime.
Yes, with sqlx, the migrations must be the source of truth for your DB schema. You cannot (ideally), manage them elsewhere. This is why the sqlx migration tool is so good, you kinda have to use it.
It's honestly very nice. The code, my migrations, my DB browser, all in one window in my IDE.
And the query is validated by running it, at compile time, by inserting mock inputs inside a transaction. It works really well.
Even if you disagree that the DB must be the source of authority and it can differ, the development boon of the process is worth the 5% chance there is some issue later, which can probably be easily resolved.
I don't really get your point. Yes, the db validates the requests. But that's based off the schema. The schema is determined from the migrations. You run the new migrations before any deploy.
You can keep pushing this argument but it doesn't mean anything in any practical sense.
my point is basically this: when the code in your application interacts with the DB, and it encounters a (runtime) error from a mismatch between the app's understanding of the DB schema and the DB's understanding of the DB schema, is that error handled gracefully? if yes, good! if no, because the app code assumes this is somehow impossible, that's a problem. that's all.
