4 ms·
I'm not sure if DO's offering has the feature parity you need, but it works really well for us, at our scale. Having done many migrations between technologies
by davb 8y ago
I'm not sure if DO's offering has the feature parity you need, but it works really well for us, at our scale.
Having done many migrations between technologies over the years, I think it's prudent to have some level of skepticism when it comes to "forked but compatible" systems. I don't consider proprietary lock in to be a boogeyman. That's not to say all proprietary technologies are bad (they're not! We use them mix of proprietary and open tech) but having an escape hatch is one of our criteria for adopting closed tech. Especially cloud services where prices aren't fixed and are subject to future increase.
- scarface74 8y agoIf you are interacting with the database using the standard Postgres drivers using the standard Postgres syntax why does it matter what’s going on under the hood?
- merlinsbrain 8y agoI don’t know of a single non-trivial situation where you can ASSUME that 2 implementations of the same spec will behave exactly the same in all possible scenarios. It’s possible your error budget accounts for this potential difference, the parents error budget seems to have no room for the possibility of edge case bugs/divergence in the implementation of their database of choice.
- scarface74 8y agoThey start with the same open source code. The main difference between Postgres and Aurora/Postgres is the storage engine and optional integration with AWS IAM, S3 extensions. If AWS didn’t store the data in a way that was cross compatible with Postgres. There would be a major outcry. But he is using DO. I doubt that his requirements are that of a large enterprise. I don’t know of one large enterprise that you could go to and say we want to use Digital Ocean.