Well, yeah. Sorry to hear that your interactions with the community was not great. My experience is quite different - perhaps I was lucky, or maybe it's becaus

Well, yeah. Sorry to hear that your interactions with the community was not great. My experience is quite different - perhaps I was lucky, or maybe it's because I started contributing to the project, not sure. But I stuck with PostgreSQL for exactly the same reason why you left it - the community. I'm sure there are still people who respond in the "RTFM" or "Try rebooting it" style, but I doubt we're alone in that. One thing that is still generally disliked on the mailing lists are people treating it as unpaid production support ("Hey, I've started using your open source database, and not it failed and the production DB is down. Help me! Pronto!"). And I kinda share that opinion. Perhaps it's worth giving the community another try? There's loads of new people contributing to it, so hopefully a more diverse audience. Regarding the replication, before the built-in replication was added to PostgreSQL 9.0, the expectation was that replication will be implemented as a plugin, using some sort of internal API. That's kinda how PostgreSQL does stuff - it's extremely extensible (functions, data types, operators, indexes, ...) so the development community expected that to be the case for replication too. But the API never materialized, because no one knew how it should look, because no one attempted to implement a plugin using a non-existent API. Chicken-egg problem. That changed though, and nowadays the built-in replication is considered a great feature. Interestingly enough, the logical replication added gradually over the several recent releases (and particularly in PostgreSQL 10) is implemented using the API approach, and it worked nicely in this case. Of course, this does not make your past experience any better, but hopefully it illustrates that the development community learned from that.