Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project
Date: 2009-12-20 15:04:57
Message-ID: 200912201505.nBKF55IG069220@vsmtp6.jaring.my
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

At 05:44 AM 12/17/2009, Greg Smith wrote:
>You've probably already found
>http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL:_Comparing_Reliability_and_Speed_in_2007
>which was my long treatment of this topic (and overdue for an update).
>
>The main thing I intended to put into such an update when I get to
>it is talking about the really deplorable bug handling situation for
>MySQL, which is part of how all the data corruption issues show
>up. There's a good overview of its general weirdness at
>http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2007/08/12/what-would-make-me-buy-mysql-enterprise/
>and the following series of pages lead you through my favorite set of bugs:

More so when Monty himself grumbles about the bug handling situation:

http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-released.html

If people still insist on MySQL, you might want to get it in writing
that it's someone else's decision to use MySQL and not yours ;).

Ten or so years ago MySQL was better than Postgres95, and it would
have been easy to justify using MySQL over Postgres95 (which was
really slow and had a fair number of bugs). But Postgresql is much
better than MySQL now. That's just my opinion of course.

Link

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2009-12-20 15:53:37 Re: Extracting SQL from logs in a usable format
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2009-12-20 14:01:45 Re: Transaction started test