3 ms·

I wonder how Aurora fares on this?

• RachelF 2y ago
  I wondered how Microsoft SQL Server fares, but not it's tested in the long list of databases: https://jepsen.io/analyses https://jepsen.io/analyses
  • __float 2y ago
    It may violate the SQL Server license? Microsoft have not apparently paid for a Jepsen analysis (or perhaps don't want it public :))
    • KronisLV 2y ago
      > Microsoft have not apparently paid for a Jepsen analysis (or perhaps don't want it public :)) If I was some database vendor that sometimes plays fast and loose (not saying Microsoft is, just an example) and my product is good for 99.95% of use cases and the remainder is exceedingly hard to fix, I'd probably be more likely to pay for Jepsen not to do an analysis, because hiring them would result in people being more likely to leave an otherwise sufficient product due to those faults being brought to light.
      • mdaniel 2y ago
        And yet, this one was done without compensation, so it seems the value of the report and the backing investigation is not only for money
• VeejayRampay 2y ago
  Aurora doesn't offer Postgresql 17 for now I think
  • phonon 2y ago
    "They occurred in every PostgreSQL version we tested, from 13.15 (the oldest version which AWS supported) to 17.4 (the newest)." So unlikely v17 will make a difference.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • otterley 2y ago
    It does today! https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2025/05/amazon-aurora-postgresql-major-version-17/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2025/05/amazon-au...
• nijave 2y ago
  If I'm understanding the issue correctly, it probably doesn't. From what I understand, multi-az has some setup with multiple semi synchronous replicas where only 1 replica needs to acknowledge the transaction. Aurora doesn't use semi synchronous replication but uses clustered/shared storage with a different replication setup for cache invalidation