On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I don't think anybody is going to dispute that here. IMO, Postgres is just completely in an another league on technical terms. From a business point of view, the BSD license is great but I can understand being nervous about availability and price of postgresql talent. In the long run though, you are much better off with one of us! merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
