Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) would write: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:48:23PM -0700, Dennis Gearon wrote: >> projects.) I want to use as my main argument, the fact (at this time, >> only from my previous usage), that MySQL really doesn't have foreign >> keys or record locking, and Postgres does. > > Define "really". Certainly, for some cases, it now does. > >> correct with today's MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, right? I *really* want to use >> PostgreSQL for this project and not MySQL as I want to avoid growing >> pains trying to get MySQL to do the job of a bigger DB down the road. > > Why don't you make the "growing pains" argument instead? What are > those arguments, anyway? ( I think I know, but maybe not.)
I would think that the 'non-validation of domain information' part would be an even better argument. It's easy to explain, which is vital. You can give examples: "If we try to insert such-and-such data, which happens to be wrong, MySQL will silently insert _different_ wrong information, and not complain at all." In contrast, they can put all sorts of extra validation tests on domains in PostgreSQL, and it can quietly _prevent_ application bugs from corrupting data. That doesn't mean that _every_ sort of corruption is prevented, but there can be some meaningful ones. For instance, if a particular column is required to be in lower case, then a domain constraint to that effect means that if someone makes an application mistake, the database will catch it. Sort of like wearing a belt _and_ suspenders. -- (format nil "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "aa454" "freenet.carleton.ca") http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/advocacy.html If at first you don't succeed, try duct tape. If duct tape doesn't work, give up. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
