3 ms·
I would say this site is too nice to mysql. For stored procedures, mysql had those later whereas postgresql got those right early on. Mysql stored procedures su
by fkdjs 14y ago
I would say this site is too nice to mysql. For stored procedures, mysql had those later whereas postgresql got those right early on. Mysql stored procedures suck donkey balls compared to postgres. Postgres in general just feels better designed, from the beginning.
re: replication, slony is horrible yet they focus on that. The slony author says you can daisy chain things, but that's a setup nightmare. Also, slony's n^2 communication gives you consistency guarantees, something I'm pretty sure mysql can't do, but most people don't need that. I much prefer bucardo. It's simple, easier to configure, fewer guarantees, but replicates much faster. I just wouldn't run a bank on that. However, how many people design bank software.
- dlikhten 14y agoI read that entire site as: PostgresSQL has feature X, Y, Z MySQL had X, recently introduced Y, and does not always have Z. It's always MySQL catching up to postgres. And lots of it's db engines are not ACID. Its not the DB I thought it was.