From: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 60% of Rails users now prefer Postgres |
Date: | 2012-09-12 01:33:29 |
Message-ID: | CAKt_ZfuO+HOKAKDwTMD06R-sLTmzQXb4sry5aP5uO+U9-kdYHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> All,
>
>
> http://blog.planetargon.com/entries/2012/8/14/rails-hosting-survey-2012-results-are-in
>
> Quite a turnabout, eh?
>
> Having been reading the discussions surrounding my comparison of MySQL vs
PostgreSQL (which appears to have been well received on both sides,
interestingly) is that a lot of Rails users are sold on one feature, namely
transactional DDL. They are getting sick and tired of back up, upgrade,
oops it didn't work, time to restore from backup routine. Expecially in
an agile environment where db schemas may change frequently, transactional
DDL is a killer feature.
As a slight aside, I was talking with an Oracle DBA about edition-based
revision features and he pointed out that it is not at all like
transactional DDL because 1) it only addresses code in stored procedures
and functions, and not table schemas etc, and 2) Editions are designed to
be able to be rolled out in stages. We might want to update the wiki to
remove that comparison.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2012-09-12 07:14:12 | Re: News coverage for 9.2 release |
Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2012-09-12 00:18:04 | Re: News coverage for 9.2 release |