←back to thread

264 points davidgomes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
paulryanrogers ◴[] No.41875055[source]
Upgrades are hard. There was no replication in the before times. The original block-level replication didn't work among different major versions. Slony was a painful workaround based on triggers that amplified writes.

Newer PostgreSQL versions are better. Yet still not quite as robust or easy as MySQL.

At a certain scale even MySQL upgrades can be painful. At least when you cannot spare more than a few minutes of downtime.

replies(7): >>41875126 #>>41876174 #>>41876232 #>>41876375 #>>41877029 #>>41877268 #>>41877959 #
api ◴[] No.41875126[source]
I've always wondered why Postgres is so insanely popular. I mean it has some nice things like very powerful support for a very comprehensive subset of SQL functionality, but most apps don't need all that.

It really feels like early 1990s vintage Unix software. It's clunky and arcane and it's hard to feel confident doing anything complex with it.

replies(9): >>41875168 #>>41875240 #>>41875306 #>>41875587 #>>41876346 #>>41876770 #>>41877119 #>>41877951 #>>41878394 #
1. Scramblejams ◴[] No.41877119[source]
> I've always wondered why Postgres is so insanely popular.

Just another anecdote: MySQL lost data for me (2004). I spent some time evaluating the projects and Postgres’ development process seemed much more mature — methodical, careful, and focused on correctness. Boring, which I loved.

I didn’t need whatever perf advantage MySQL had so I switched to Postgres and never looked back. And then the Oracle drama and Monty’s behavior around it — not saying he was wrong or right, but it was the opposite of boring — just reinforced my decision.

I like to play with new tech in various spots of the stack, but for filesystems and databases I go boring all the way.