[say_it_as_it_is]

If you're going to pay for someone to manage Postgres for you, why not pay an official supporter/contributor to the project? I don't see Google investing in features nor community. Are you simply reaching for whatever seems more convenient?

[jasonvorhe]

Yes. Of course. What other reason would there be?

If you're on GCP already, of course you'd opt to use their managed Postgres service, otherwhise you'd have to worry about egress traffic, transport encryption, IAM, etc by yourself (or pay someone else do it for you, of course, making it more difficult to calculate your infra costs, having a 2nd support contract, etc) without much benefit.

How do you know that Google isn't supporting Postgres in any way, e.g. by supplying upstream patches, etc? The same goes for AWS, Azure, Heroku.

[DoctorOW]

>How do you know that Google isn't supporting Postgres in any way, e.g. by supplying upstream patches, etc? The same goes for AWS, Azure, Heroku.

There's a list of contributors and what organization they're from here <https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/>. You won't see "Azure" listed but that's because it's considered part of Microsoft. Of the ones you listed, Azure is the only one that is considered a major contributor though you'll see there are companies that specialize in managed Postgres specifically.

[Can_Not]

Where can I get a small pg instance (competitive to GCP'S ~$7/month offering) that is ran by an official supporter/contributor?