There's still a bit to do on the auto-failover front, but that may end up being more of a third party undertaking. Postgres has failover facilities included, they just have to be driven by something external right now.
If you count all the crappy shared hosts, XAMPP local installs, and hobbyists setting up their own little VPSes, perhaps.
Using a single, unreplicated database instance in production for anything serious is bizarre. Failed hardware is hardly unheard of.
It is incredibly common. Go check out a thousand businesses running mysql, you'll be able to count the ones using replication on your fingers.
>Failed hardware is hardly unheard of.
You don't need to use mysql replication to deal with that. Even the crappiest low end SAN storage devices do it vastly better than mysql does, without any of the bugs and problems mysql replication has.
Replication can be done off-site so you at most lose a couple of seconds worth of data. I do not know anything about MySQL's replciation but my trust in PostgreSQL's is very high.
Which is why it is being replicated, like I said.
I'd wager that a huge number of MySQL users are using replication. Running a single database in a production environment is totally unacceptable and a major business continuity problem.
You don't need to use mysql's broken replication to get HA. Hell, I've seen more people (wisely) using DRBD for that than using mysql's replication. But even entry level storage devices do replication.
Over the years, Postgres has made up those shortcomings, so it retains its respect among database wonks and now other people can easily use it too, so you see a lot of people adopting it over the past few years.
But in overall usage numbers, I would be surprised if it were anywhere near MySQL. It takes a long time to overcome that kind of inertia.