[twerquie]

MySQL is to Postgres today as mSQL was to MySQL in 1998; more popular yet technologically inferior. In another 15 years, we will be having the same arguments about PostgreSQL and the thing that comes to replace it, whatever that may be.

MySQL is in production and we have to live with it. The defences in the linked article are all valid. MySQL is a very sharp tool and can be used effectively. But its time has passed. Start your new projects on a more solid footing.

[taligent]

Your analogy and your point is misguided. In another 15 years. MySQL will be legacy and PostgreSQL will be a footnote in history.

Because what you fail to understand is that people aren't switching from SQL to SQL they are switching to NoSQL and doing so en masse. Have you not seen the huge array of NoSQL options that weren't available 15 years ago e.g. MongoDB, CouchBase, Riak, Cassandra, HBase, Redis. And the upcoming trend is going to be in Graph databases e.g. Neo4J.

[sadmysqluser]

You're mistaken if you think MySQL and PostgreSQL and the other databases are simply going to stand still during that time and you're also mistaken if you think applications which work with the SQL model will be abandoned before a better model is found.

My prediction is that every SQL and NoSQL system you mention will evolve towards being producers and consumers of SQL and NoSQL interfaces. I.e. like SQLite4 over KV, or Oracle memcache over InnoDB.

[freshhawk]

Bit of a filter bubble effect going on here.

[calinet6]

Data doesn't magically become non-relational with time.

[twerquie]

Trends are trends. ACID-compliant databases will always have their place.