Comments on: Is MySQL 5.1 really a better 5.0?

By: Xaprb

Xaprb — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:01:52 +0000

This remains: If you don’t need 5.1′s new features[1], why break something that works? I’ve gotten an emergency call because someone upgraded and got bitten by this:

http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=44969

My opinion of new features such as partitioning and row-based replication is not high, but otherwise I don’t see problems with 5.1 as long as you test with your workload — the major problem is upgrading without testing. See http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2009/08/08/warning-upgrade-mysql-without-testing-at-your-own-risk/ for my rant and suggestions on this.

[1] There is actually one very compelling reason to upgrade: Percona XtraDB. Its features and performance are a major boon.

By: Owen

Owen — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:40:05 +0000

It’s now Aug 10th, 2009. Any change in opinions on 5.1 vs 5.0 now?

By: Mark Callaghan

Mark Callaghan — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:34:12 +0000

Most people think that 5.0 wasn’t stable until 5.0.3X so 5.1 might be stable earlier than 5.0 was depending on the features you use.

By: Sorin Pop

Sorin Pop — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:11:29 +0000

Well 5.1 for production is a no-go for me. I had problems importing data with mysqldump, problems starting the server, binlog problems…

As Carsten said.. if you are a new user and need it for some school project it may even work but for production use I will stick with 5.0.67

Can’t even figure out why 5.0 was stable enough from the first releases and 5.1 isn’t at 5.1.32…

By: Sergei Golubchik

Sergei Golubchik — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:59:39 +0000

Right, binlog is not a transactional storage engine. But why would it matter ?

Why one may need commits in binlog and innodb log to be in the same order (besides hotbackup) ?