[BinaryIdiot]

Yes they very much should! But in my, admittedly anecdotal, experience only the best / most senior ever do. Almost every junior or mid developer I've worked with (and a small handful of senior folks) not only have no idea how changes like this would impact the larger environment but many won't even care to look into it.

[noir_lord]

In part though that's because the tooling to do it easily absolutely sucks, the impedance mismatch (overused but in context here) between the two parts of the system causes a lot of the underlying issues, better tooling is a large part of the solution I think but I've not seen anything that would help and the surface area of a modern RDBMS is so large without even getting into vendor specific stuff I'm not sure what that would even look like.

[BinaryIdiot]

That's certain a great point! If there was a way to automatically test much of this I bet even the newest of engineers could stop this. Doing that is tough, hmm...

[noir_lord]

I think the only way you could do it on top of a RDBMS is to use a strict subset of features that are common (something that many ORM's already do) which reduce the problem scope down to something manageable, the issue then would be that there would always be the temptation to use something outside that subset and forgo the easier testing, fast forward and you have the same issue.

It would be interesting to build a RDBMS that enforced that subset by simply not allowing those features to be used/abused with support for many of the modern features (JSONB etc) but that is way beyond my area of expertise.