Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

From: Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0
Date: 2006-10-28 18:32:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Robert Treat wrote:

>And of course the following is usually worth pointing people to as well. 

OK, this link has to be the best dang reason to use Postgres instead 
I've ever seen.  The combination of "Whoops, no InnoDB table support", 
"Supported syntax, unsupported feature", and "Transactions on mixed 
table types" strikes me as a recipie for utter diaster.  Especially 
considering that you can not detect the mistake (forgetting to make a 
table InnoDB) until after the damage is done, and long after the mistake 
was made.  Transactions are like Yoda said- "Do or do not, there is no 
try."  Having pseudo-transactions is worse than not having any 
transactions at all- they lull me into a false sense of security.  
Especially if all tables are supposed to be transaction-enabled, only by 
accident some aren't.

This just cements my opinion that the only purpose of having more than 
one engine in a database is so that you can pick the wrong one.


In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Michael DeanDate: 2006-10-28 20:00:18
Subject: Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0
Previous:From: Paul RamseyDate: 2006-10-28 18:13:01
Subject: Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group