Re: postgre vs MySQL

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> I'm really hoping Sun will put a stop to such behavior, but wonder if
>> they'll do anything at all.
>>
>
>
>> Sadly, the worst problem with the behavior re mysql releases is that
>> it trains DBAs to NOT install updates. In fairness, I know quite a
>> few Oracle DBAs who won't install patches right away either.
>>
>
> It's worse than that: it also trains repackagers to not be too quick on
> the draw to adopt a mysql update release. I can tell you that new mysql
> updates don't get into Fedora, let alone RHEL, till they've been around
> at least a month or two. That's not laziness on my part; that's the
> burnt child shunning the fire.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
I view updates/patches of any kind like this, if ain't broke don't fix
it. I normally only update computers with security patches only after i
prove it don't destroy installs.

The email server we use, uses MySQL as the backend for calendars, tasks,
and contacts, i've never been happy with its performance or the
reliability. Seen mysql trash the database 3 times on dirty writes.
Talk about annoyed users when their task and calendar entries disappear.

Reading through the specs and what little i have played/experience with
MySQL I avoid it because data is not guaranteed to be consistent even
running InnoDB. I don't ever want to tell the data entry girls that
yesterdays work needs to be duplicated because the database took a dump.

performance is nice to have but no where near as important as making
sure the data is safe and clean.