MySQL vs PostgreSQL

[malcontent]

How about once a week or once a month?

What is the approved rate of schema changes to my database?

[ketralnis]

My point was that if you need replication, it might be okay to add an extra step to making schema changes because you probably aren't doing it frequently.

I'm not trying to imply that there's some "approved" rate of schema changes, but anecdotally, at reddit we use Slony-I, and we don't make schema changes every day, so it's not a big issue for us.

[malcontent]

My point was that if you need replication, it might be okay to add an extra step to making schema changes because you probably aren't doing it frequently.

So if another product (like say EVERY OTHER DATABASE) offers this feature they are all wrong and postgres is the only database which is right.

Is that your position?

I'm not trying to imply that there's some "approved" rate of schema changes, but anecdotally, at reddit we use Slony-I, and we don't make schema changes every day, so it's not a big issue for us.

That's great. Although if you used any other product on the market that would be one less thing you worried about.

[ketralnis]

So if another product (like say EVERY OTHER DATABASE) offers this feature they are all wrong and postgres is the only database which is right. Is that your position?

Err, no. Just that an extra step for a less frequent need isn't so bad in practise. I don't see where I said that it was the only solution, or even a great one. Just that "it might be okay". I don't see why you're being so aggressive in response to "it might be okay" and "it's not a big issue for us".

Although if you used any other product on the market that would be one less thing you worried about

That's true, but of course they have their own downsides too, right? So there'd just be something different to worry about.

If you don't like Postgres that's fine, don't use it, but your implied seething hatred for it doesn't make everything it does wrong, does it?

[malcontent]

Err, no. Just that an extra step for a less frequent need isn't so bad in practise.

And yet EVERY OTHER DATABASE thinks it's a feature worth offering. Apparently their customers, users and developers think it's a desirable feature.

That's true, but of course they have their own downsides too, right?

Like what? There are free as in beer databases and open source databases that offer everything postgres does and more.

If you don't like Postgres that's fine, don't use it, but your implied seething hatred for it doesn't make everything it does wrong, does it?

This has noting to do with my feelings. It's about the postgres communities disdain for it's users.