mark at blackmans.org
Thu May 8 12:58:19 BST 2008
On 8 May 2008, at 12:30, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Steve Sims <s.sims at fairfx.com> wrote:
>> I think we had been running MySQL 3.1. I did seriously consider
>> and test
> Not that a good yarn isn't appreciated, but... Saying "MySQL 3.1
> couldn't handle my incredibly complex queries" is rather like saying
> "I switched from MS-DOS to Unix as the command line tool weren't up to
> what I needed" -- a historic anecdote, and a somewhat self-evident one
> at that. It doesn't really add anything to a modern "Which RDBMS?"
> discussion. (Maybe you didn't intend it to; just sayin').
> MySQL 5.1 is great product and I'm quite certain these days you
> wouldn't run into the problems you've talked about.
> An interesting story would be hearing how your company handles
> redundancy, backups, and disaster recovery drills, with Pg.
I think Steve is misremembering version numbers with the passage of time
and he probably meant running 4.0 and tested against 5.0 beta.
As great as MySQL 5.1 undoubtedly is, it was only officially released as
"general availability" a little under 2 months ago I believe.
More information about the london.pm