Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"

In article <Pine(dot)LNX(dot)4(dot)21(dot)0308220805290(dot)11798-100000(at)tiger(dot)tigrasoft(dot)hu>,
Hornyak Laszlo <kocka(at)tigrasoft(dot)hu> writes:

> Hi all!

> Can someone explain me why is it usefull if the table created in
> transaction disapears on rollback?
> Anyway the progress db supports it, at least the version 9.
> The other question: why is mysql enemy? Isn`t it just another RDBMS?

Your second question is answered by someone in a recent posting on the
MySQL mailing list:

> As an Oracle DBA (I'm one myself), InnoDB will give you "close to Oracle"
> features.

> As an FYI, we also spent alot of time looking @ Postres and SAPDB. Postgres
> is a great database engine, and would be very adequate if it didn't have one
> significant missing feature - there is no replication or standby support
> unless you buy an expensive licence (which brings the cost close to that of
> Oracle); we need the high-availability of clusters and replication. Both
> Postgres and MySQL have great support via their mailing lists, but once in a
> while, the people on the Postgres mailing list decide to kick MySQL around a
> bit; I think they have an inferiority complex.

:-)