And if you read carefully through their post, and the comments, and the commentary on pgsql-hackers, you'd see that:
1) it was an engineering decision based on their particular situation and use case (as it should be)
2) that use case may be pretty specific and/or unique, and not well suited for Postgres (which is fine)
3) they don't explain what all their tradeoffs are, just the ones they're making arguments against (which makes the post much less useful than it could be)
I would not take that blog post as a general "MySQL is better than Postgres" argument. It really needed more info on what they're doing, why they're doing it that way, and what tradeoffs they were willing to make (speed vs. data integrity, etc.).
I would not take that blog post as a general "MySQL is better than Postgres" argument. It really needed more info on what they're doing, why they're doing it that way, and what tradeoffs they were willing to make (speed vs. data integrity, etc.).