Responding to this story
I think the author of these slides is right in their response but I don’t think the tone is all that great.
Good talks have an element of entertainment too. I’m sure blog posts have been written in a more matter-of-fact tone about this.
While I agree with your sentiment, I think I’d be pretty irked by complaints such as the below!
“While it’s always bad form to let your
code hold open database transactions
while performing unrelated blocking I/O,
the reality is that most engineers are not
database experts and may not always
understand this problem, especially
when using an ORM that obscures low-
level details like open transactions.”
I cannot disagree. Condescending attitude and “Uber is big, so they should be able to figure everything out”-perspective doesn’t seem appropriate in such kind of “response”.
I can see where they have one “moral claim” against Uber, that comparing MySQL logical replication and Postgres physical replication is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
I agree, too. Engineering teams make decisions based on their best guesses. Sometimes they may have overlooked something or may be plainly wrong. That’s fine.
Getting a snarky reply instead of a polite discussion will deter future engineering teams from writing thorough blogposts detailing their operations in fear of getting dumbed down.
This isn’t really “A PostgreSQL Response” since it seems to just be some random consultant that decided to make a presentation. It seems wrong to me that it seems to be trying to pass itself off as something official.
It doesn’t seem to even be one of the consulting companies formed by the Postgres core team, which would be more understandable as a quasi-official response (many of the core team also have consulting companies on the side). The author of these slides doesn’t appear at all on the contributors list.
Regarding this, these two articles are really worth reading:
Ugh… for someone who claims to be a database expert to shrug-emoji “handles dev bugs better” is crazy to me. Multitenancy is a HUGE win for real-world system use in nontrivial orgs. Companies pushing OLTP databases to their limits tend to choose mysql for many reasons. You need expertise when you push things to their limits. Postgres has nice features, and is a better 80% database, but it has less trust among those operating the largest and highest performing installations.
To those who downvoted this as incorrect, why do you think Google, Facebook, Twitter, Alibaba use MySQL?
I did not downvote your original post but this “why do you think X, Y, and Z did action A” isn’t a very solid argument. Google started 18 years ago, so decisions made even 10 years ago may not apply now, or even 5 years ago. Facebook come about in an age of LAMP. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that pointing to other companies and saying “clearly they chose X for the argument I just gave you” is not convincing.
Is this an official PostgreSQL response?