I think it's just a reflex for (ex-MySQL) Postgres users to ask that anytime they see someone using MySQL. If you have significant experience with both you know the quality of life is different between the two.

Really? Because Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and Google all have stake in the MySQL ring (google least so). MySQL has a lot of good knowns at scale, too.

All companies old enough to have a lot of legacy infrastructure from before it was common knowledge that Postgres is better. It would be more curious why MySQL would be adopted today than 10-15 years ago.

MySQL is insanely performant for simple primary key lookups, and has a lot of good knowns. It also has fewer tripups for things like vacuuming, (pretty much requiring) pgbouncer, pgbouncer pooling settings...

If you're doing things with replication logs, mysql replication logs are a heck of a lot simpler, and there's more tooling for them in the OSS world

That said, I do use postgres a lot :)

> MySQL is insanely performant for simple primary key lookups, and has a lot of good knowns.

MySQL is extremely buggy and silently corrupts data. It also does not enforce explicitly requested referential integrity, a core mandate of a relational database management system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emgJtr9tIME

MySQL lacks adequate authentication model (like OS authentication or SmartCard authentication in Oracle).

Video neglects to mention MySQL strict mode (which one should be using) and solves all these behaviors. They're explicit about this in docs, including what the default is: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/server-configuration-...

Auth is a pretty aside argument. Those sorts of auth are not a particularly common use case. All sorts of auth can go in front rather than be built in, and if those don't apply, sure, might affect your DB choice. Not inherently a reason to not use MySQL though.

Actually I never used MySQL really. But sometimes it's great to know why decisions are made. Actually I don't think they said, "well lets use MySQL over Oracle" especially since MySQL is a Oracle product, too. There would've been a way to use MariaDB aswell. And I guess anything with license costs fall out already (they explained why in the article).

Edit: My guess would be that they still keep galera in mind, but since they didn't shared they why, one could only guess. And Transaction Wraparound maybe.

MySQL had useable replication years beofre PG. Maybe that's why.

it's probably because they still had oracle software and support contracts in place, and in-house knowledge of mysql.

Actually you could do DRBD with PostgreSQL, too. There is a Master-Master Replication with MySQL that PostgreSQL don't has, but since they didn't used that it would be great to hear we they've choosen MySQL over PostgreSQL. Would be great if they would share that, too.

DRBD and what database you use are orthogonal surely?

The usage of DRDB somewhat eliminates the need for built in master/master replication, since its handled at the block layer. The two disks are always in sync, thus you don't need mysql's master/master setup. One of the main features missing from Postgres is that feature. Since it's not being used in their Mysql setup many people might ask why they wouldn't just use Postgres.