3 ms·
I’m not sure the risk of an immature engine is worth it to them. Customers pay for hosted Postgres because they want to not worry about doing it themselves for
by klysm 3y ago
I’m not sure the risk of an immature engine is worth it to them. Customers pay for hosted Postgres because they want to not worry about doing it themselves for cheaper. They are paying for reliability.
I think you’re correct about the existence of an economic incentive for the cloud providers, but I anticipate it would be offered as a distinct product to “vanilla” (at least in the sort term).
Things get interesting though because this space of database products has trended towards restricting who can host in their license terms (TimeScale, ClickHouse, etc). If that’s Orioles cash-in play then maybe cloud providers can’t use it anyway.
I suspect the fate of the engine will be determined by its funding source
- Rapzid 3y ago> I’m not sure the risk of an immature engine is worth it to them Heh, about that.. Hasn't AWS already crossed that threshold with Aurora RDS, Redshift, and etc?
- klysm 3y agoBut Aurora RDS is a separate product - it's not sold as standard Postgres which you can also get. It's not like they are trying to pass off aurora as the same thing.
- Rapzid 3y agoThey are 100% selling it as standard PostgreSQL.. With benefits.
- klysm 3y agoI didn’t get that vibe from the docs - to me I got it as mostly postgres compatible API with a different storage layer that has benefits.
- Rapzid 3y agoSorry for the very late reply, but Aurora PostgreSQL isn't just wire protocol compatible like CockRoachDB. It actually is PostgreSQL modified for their service. It includes all your favorite PG extensions and even large object functionality.
- klysm 3y agoYea but it’s modified for their service as you say - it’s not Postgres because it’s not the same storage layer and it’s not open source