>MySQL got reliable enough

MySQL still doesn't support nested DDL's, and this has caused me extreme amounts of pain in old projects where consistency was expected and we did not receive it on crucial payment processing.

>Postgres, which was reliable

My experience recently and historically has been the exact opposite. Postgres seems to blow up in more mysterious and hair-yankingly frustrating ways than MySQL does. "Why Uber Engineering moved from Postgres to MySQL" echos a lot of the issues I've had with Postgres in large production environments.

Uber’s use of PostgreSQL was a mess. It’s probably the worst example of why not to use PostgreSQL.

https://lwn.net/Articles/752063/ PostgreSQL's fsync() surprise

this is very scary, if not fatally scary.

I think it is scary about Linux. They are still wrestling with reliable error reporting for buffered IO after decades, and while the changes in 4.13 are an improvement in some ways they make some highly questionable assumptions that don't seem to be based on POSIX. I'm not following it in detail but fortunately it sounds like something might be done to improve the situation on the Linux side?

I can't read it because it's paywalled, but how is the operating system's fsync behavior "fatally scary" with regards to PostgreSQL? How does MySQL handle durability in these cases? What's your point?