Postgres in Utah

Bryan Sant bryan.sant at
Wed Nov 18 10:50:02 MST 2009

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Barry Roberts <blr at> wrote:
> Postgres has for years been much closer to feature parity with Oracle (and
> maybe other commercial databases).  I've used MySQL a lot for web, and
> especially read-heavy applications.  But when I already have code that
> relies on Oracle features like transactions, triggers, and pl/sql, pg works
> where MySQL wouldn't.

I use Postgres for the same reason.  Oracle has always been
pre-ordained as the king at the companies I've worked at.  So I've
always had to work with Oracle, and over time, I've become used to the
feature set it provides.  Postgres provides most of the same features
and is dang near a drop-in replacement for Oracle.  That fact
simplifies things for me as a developer.  I write my logic once,
knowing that the underlying database (be it Postgres or Oracle) will
work the same.  With MySQL, you may have to re-implement some of your
data access logic because certain DB features don't exist.

That being said, I've worked plenty with MySQL and have nothing bad to
say about it.  The features that it does supply are solid, its blazing
fast, and has excellent cross-platform tools.  If you don't need
triggers or stored procs, it's just dandy.


More information about the PLUG mailing list