I was saying, probably most users of a different system do so on for some reason other than, Git being objectively inferior for their purposes (and as others in the thread pointed out, the latter actual is the case at the large scale end of the spectrum for big companies concerned with scaling, not choosing Git). For starters it was mostly a joke, and explicitly a conjecture. That’s a pretty aggressive and surface level read of my comment. And functionally I think that’s resulted only in furthering it’s supremacy over alternatives, despite there existing a handful of cultish weirdos who are _really_ into Mercurial and prefer not to fux with Git as a personal lifestyle choice haha) I think in practice the most common result of encountering problems with Git is, fix the problems. I suspect the die-hard proponents of Mercurial, or SVN, or whatever else, these few pagan heretics that might exist out there wherever they’re hiding, have found themselves in a camp different to the Git standard likely on the basis of electing to be intentionally contrarian / anti-normative as the general catalyst, and rather not, as a function of struggling with Git to the point of being so disillusioned they call it quits and head out looking for greener pastures. Here is would seem these highly likable alternatives for those who took the plunge are nevertheless dwindling into irrelevance… Usually the phenomenon you’re describing, leads to other alternatives becoming more popular not less (even if the most popular standard continues to eclipse the field. And “large margins” are indeed pretty objectively the case (from the largest developer surveys the breakdown 10 years ago was like 70% Git to everything, growing to ~95% in 2022). But that’s also hard to reconcile with the reality of the adoption trending consistently away from any alternative and only towards Git. Having the flexibility of knowing these features exist should you ever have a use-case for them is massive. The odds that you'll want, need, or greatly benefit at least one of these features is not small. The list of things you can do in PostgreSQL that you simply can't with MySQL is massive and grows every day. Need window functions to accurately compute some analytics in a sane period of time? Sorry, you can't. Need to apply an index to the result of a function to quickly fix a performance issue in prod? Sorry, you can't. But if you end up needing to: they're there, and you can just start using them.Ĭompare this to MySQL where they simply don't exist no matter how much you may need them. Some of these features exist, but have zero impact on you unless you actually opt to use them. It's not like PostgreSQL is some minefield of misfeatures and quirky behavior. This doesn't really hold water in my opinion. It's less featureful, and I'd consider that a strong virtue in the YAGNI camp - less to go wrong, less mental overhead.

Foreign key mysql workbench