I am not saying it is not well documented. I am saying that it isn't ACID compliant, which it isn't, as they document.
It comes up far more often than I would like, particularly with migrations and schema changes. It is one of the huge reasons I actively refuse to work with MySQL. I have never upgraded a MySQL schema without running into a problem where I needed to roll back and the transaction committed on a table creation. That left my databases in an uncertain state, which is about as bad as you can get from my perspective.
MsSQL is better at this but they heavily use dynamic SQL and SQL injection, both of which open the database up to SQL injection. Apparently, PostgreSQL is even fedramp compliant, and that actually matters to me.
This is still a very strange thread. This would be like asking a C# developer why the .net stack is the best thing ever created and why they should use it over PHP or Django. I don't know what the OP really expected to get out of this apart from basically everyone here saying "you should probably use PostgreSQL".
Thanks,
~Ben
The MySQL manual says that INNODB 'adheres closely' to the ACID model, though there are settings where you can trade some ACID compliance for performance.
I've been running PostgreSQL for a client since 2005, we're on our 5th hardware platform in that time period. We also run a MySQL/MariaDB database to support our website, it is currently on an AWS RDB server which is refreshed from the PostgreSQL server. I also administered an Oracle system for a well-known educational publisher for about 10 years. Given my druthers, I'd take PostgreSQL over either Oracle or MySQL.
--
Mike Nolan