> "In my eyes, MySQL has done great harm to SQL because many of the problems people associate with SQL are in fact just MySQL problems"
That's a very strong and subjective statement. If any, resources heavy databases like Oracle or PostgreSQL, had brought more users to NoSQL than MySQL. That's doesn't there is something wrong with those databases, only that they weren't the right tool for the job is some cases.
Also "MySQL problems" are most of the time due to poor usage, not to the database system itself, actually when used properly MySQL/MyISAM is a great tool
That is pure FUD. Postgres is no more resource heavy than MySQL (the stock config will only use 32MB of ram!), and will perform better on many real world workloads.
I think it's not resource heaviness per se so much as high latency (and low user-friendliness) in a dev configuration. Postgres takes noticeable time to start up, both server and client, and the client feels less responsive; its commands are also more arcane (e.g. mysql's "show tables" is something like "\d"). Postgres is quite possibly better for a "production" configuration, but it's much slower to develop with, so developers get to thinking of it as "slow".
That's a very strong and subjective statement. If any, resources heavy databases like Oracle or PostgreSQL, had brought more users to NoSQL than MySQL. That's doesn't there is something wrong with those databases, only that they weren't the right tool for the job is some cases.
Also "MySQL problems" are most of the time due to poor usage, not to the database system itself, actually when used properly MySQL/MyISAM is a great tool