[b9b10eb736_]

Sorry if it was unclear. I think I explained preciely what I meant in my responses to grzm. I don't think there's any debate on the "poor resiliency" point for anybody that has already used a distributed database or even just used postgres in production and experienced a slave promotion. For the "Schemas remains at postgres core" thing, it's probably not as straightforward, but once again, I really think anybody who has ever used a document-driven database can understand what I mean through this. You really don't use postgres as you use a document-driven database because it's impractical. (More generally, this point could be completed with a list of all the features that are easy to handle in pretty much any non-19xx database and that are a nightmare in postgres (users, permissions, indices creations/deletion, …).)

threeseed has summed my thoughts up. Solar/ES are solving issues that postgres just don't address at all at the moment, and it's definitely not only about text search (which is also a point). Saying that postgres should be/can be used for any use-case apart from TS is an absolute nonsense and that's what made me react in the first place. Moreover, the feeling that the community don't largely agree just on the fact that postgres doesn't meet these four points is indeed a bit appalling. OK, saying that postgres should try to solve them is another debate, but let's just agree on the fact that if you absolutely need a very resilient OR distributed OR document-based OR easy-to-upgrade DBMS (although for this last point, I have to agree that things have changed recently, partly thanks to the Uber gate I think), postgresql is probably not a good choice. There's definitely a HUGE trade-off and we should agree on this. Postgres don't come even close to Solar/ES in term of horizontal scalability. I'd really like it could, but as of today it can't.

[pritambaral]

> a nightmare in postgres (users, permissions, indices creations/deletion, …).

Could you expand on what you mean here? By 'users, permissions', I assume you meant management of users and access control to records at the database layer. If so, I should tell you I use database-enforced roles to manage access to various areas of the schema I manage, and RLS to protect access to records. If not, I'd very much like to know what exactly you meant.

Could you expand a bit on what exactly you mean by "indices creations/deletion"?

> things have changed recently, partly thanks to the Uber gate I think

Logical replication in core was in the works long before Uber's post, and already available as a plugin for at least two releases at the time. I remember, because we ourselves used it (for syncing data between environments, not for upgrades) in 9.6 (the then latest release).

[fiddlerwoaroof]

I have benchmarked a single Postgres node performing comparably to a six node Cassandra cluster on timeseries data (using TimeseriesDB). The more I’ve had to deal with the limitations of other databases, the more I’ve come to think that people should just start with Postgres and only pick something else if Postgres doesn’t work out

[mmt]

> I’ve come to think that people should just start with Postgres and only pick something else if Postgres doesn’t work out

Even that standard results in people giving up on PG too early. It's possible to get it to continue working out, but it can require effort beyond a naive implementation and often more hardware knowledge than is common any more.

The other options can make naive implementations much easier, at least initially, and on almost any hardware. Of course, that usually ends up costing far more, even at modest scale.