I didn't see if there was a re:invent talk about it, but is it actuallly Cassandra under the hood? It seemed like it might just be the Cassandra API akin to Aurora being MySQL.
It happens to be Cassandra, but that did make me think about the way Amazon brands the Postgres compatible Aurora as "Aurora PostgreSQL".
That's pretty lousy of them to take advantage of the name. I imagine the uptake would be lower if it weren't in the name, and they had to settle for just saying "Postgres Compatible" in the description.
I also imagine AWS would come after me if I launched "XYZ Fargate" or similar.
There are two separate offerings. AWS offers Aurora/Postgres which is a fork of Postgres with Amazon’s own code and there is regular RDS/Postgres which is basically managed Postgres.
The storage backend isn't Postgres, and I assume the repeated use of the words "compatible" and "wire protocol" is on purpose, so they can continue to change it.
That's certainly the case at least for Aurora PostgreSQL, but then again, Aurora PostgreSQL lags MySQL significantly [1] in features; maybe that is related.
That's pretty lousy of them to take advantage of the name. I imagine the uptake would be lower if it weren't in the name, and they had to settle for just saying "Postgres Compatible" in the description.
I also imagine AWS would come after me if I launched "XYZ Fargate" or similar.