Re: MySQL has transactions

At 8:30 PM -0800 1/23/01, David Wall wrote:
>Now that MySQL has transaction support through Berkeley DB lib, and it's
>always had way more data types, what are the main advantages postgresql has
>over it?  I don't think mysql has subselects and such, but they did add a
>master-slave replication feature as well as online reorganization (perhaps
>locks tables like vacuum?).
>
>Anybody used both of the current releases who can comment?


I haven't seen the new mysql.  My feeling is that all things being
equal, gluing transactions on top of a database implementation can
not possibly be as stable and correct as building them in from the
beginning.  The design heuristic that applies is "Make it run first,
THEN make it run fast."  Mysql was built to run fast from the
beginning, and now they're jamming in functionality.  So if I needed
transactions I'd go with postgres until mysql has a track record.

I happen to be on a project at this very moment in which we're
converting a mysql database to postgres specifically to get
transactions, and I prefer making the conversion rather than taking a
chance on mysql transactions.

I'd be interested to hear any arguments or real-life experiences pro or con.

Steve Leibel