Re: postgre vs MySQL

[Justin <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Lane wrote:

"Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> 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.