Sorry, but that is typical MySQL attitude - when someone finds a bug or a missing feature, they just say "you shouldn't do it that way".
Same thing they were saying back in the '90s for foreign keys, transactions, stored procedures...
Same thing they were saying back in the '90s for foreign keys, transactions, stored procedures...
I have to do the same when I teach new developers and friends about the replication problems with PG.
When you say "replication problems" then you probably mean silent slave corruption?
I'm sorry but this is still a MySQL-only feature. The PostgreSQL-replication can't go out of sync, and worse, it can't even silently fail.
In this regard (and some others) PostgreSQL sadly lacks all the fun and excitement that can be had with MySQL.
This is a major difference to MySQL replication, where silent divergence between Master/Slave is a common problem. You don't notice it until you run into spurious SQL errors or perform a manual table-checksum. In a worst case you don't notice it until that day when your master fails...
It's doing exactly what you told it to do.
The bug is a human bug of not understanding what you are asking even though it seems logical.
(I do know the answer - it's because they can do hash joins and MySQL can't).
Also it's been fixed in 6.0-alpha just not back-ported, so I'm not sure I agree here.