There is almost no good reason to choose MySQL over PostgreSQL for any operational reason, I did a deep dive many moons ago (before major improvements in performance to postgres) and people were saying that MySQL was faster. I found that not to be true and the differences have only gained even more favour towards postgres.

also, I assume you mean MariaDB as MySQL is owned by Oracle and I would greatly implore anyone and everyone to avoid Oracle as if it has herpes.

There are a lot of historic problems with MySQL accepting invalid data, committing data even when there are constraint issues, and having very poor transactional isolation, I am not sure if these have improved.

Truthfully, the only benefits you gain from using MariaDB or MySQL are:

* Memory tables

* Having inconsistent replicas (which can be useful when you want your downstream to have less data than your upstream and you know it won’t get updated.)

Does Postgres have an archive mode?

If you say what you’re trying to actually achieve I can help with a solution, but asking if it supports an arbitrary feature is not going to get the answer you want because depending on what you’re actually using an archive table for, Postgres might have something already built in but it will almost assuredly not be exactly like an archive table storage type.

Sorry, ARCHIVE is a MySQL storage engine. It supports only non destructive transactions: INSERT, REPLACE, and SELECT, but not DELETE and UPDATE.

It’s an excellent alternative to use a WORM drive when you’re trying to preserve everything (say, a list of financial transaction).

I’ve looked for something like this in Postgres (which I love!), but sadly it doesn’t seem supported.

https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/archive-storage-engi...

Also, you might be interested in Parquet, perhaps as seen through Delta Lake https://delta.io/ or Postgres Foreign Data Wrappers like https://github.com/adjust/parquet_fdw -- Delta Lake's simple "LSM of Parquet files in an object store" design is pretty sweet.