[yoavm]

This looks great! How easy is it to self host Supabase? Is it more like "we're open-source, but good luck getting this deployed!", or can someone really build on Supabase and if things get a little too expensive it's easy enough to self-host the whole thing and just switch over? I wonder if people are doing that.

[kiwicopple]

self-hosting docs are here: https://supabase.com/docs/guides/self-hosting/docker

And a 5-min demo video with Digital Ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqiQKRKsfZE&embeds_referring...

Anyone who is familiar with basic server management skills will have no problem self-hosting. every tool in the supabase stack[0] is a docker image and works in isolation. If you just want to use this Storage Engine, it's on docker-hub (supabase/storage-api). Example with MinIO: https://github.com/supabase/storage/blob/master/docker-compo...

[0] architecture: https://supabase.com/docs/guides/getting-started/architectur...

[replwoacause]

I was pretty unhappy with the self hosted offering. It’s neutered compared to the cloud, which was disappointing.

[kiwicopple]

> neutered

Can you share more? There is nothing missing, it’s all the same code that we run in production (besides some login changes to keep it decoupled from the platform)

[replwoacause]

Sure. I wouldn't quite agree with you that "there is nothing missing" though.

https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444 https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4421

[kiwicopple]

thanks for the links

> https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444

This discussion is about configuration: self-hosters configure configure their services in code[0], using .env vars / docker-compose.yml and should be checking it into source control. Self-hosters are not missing any functionality - the opposite actually: we have a subset of configuration items available on the platform

I get that it's different to the platform, but it's (IMO) the more "correct" way - all configuration should be version controlled

> https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4421

This one is about Auth providers. They are also configuration: https://github.com/supabase/auth?tab=readme-ov-file#configur...

[0] Configuration in code: https://supabase.com/docs/guides/self-hosting/docker#configu...

[1] Terraform: https://supabase.com/docs/guides/platform/terraform

[kiwicopple]

(FYI: I saw a deleted comment that this requires a restart: the same is true on the platform)

[tmountain]

I believe that the self hosted version is missing auth hooks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Supabase/comments/1bpaq9w/comment/k...

[kiwicopple]

i believe the docker image ID on the docker-compose hasn’t been updated to the latest stable version. I’ll make a PR later when I’m at my computer (or anyone else is welcome to and I can review/merge)

[asciii]

Following...

[ihateolives]

From top of my head: reports and multiple projects. Also I kept getting weird "fetch failed" errors when creating rules or adding users from gui working behind reverse proxy so I gave up on the end.

[zipping1549]

Some may disagree but in my experience Supabase was definitely challenging to selfhost. Don't get me wrong; I'm pretty confident with selfhosting but Supabase was definitely on the hard side.

Pocketbase being literally single-binary doesn't make Supabase look good either, although funtionalities differ.

[kiwicopple]

Yes, we have a vastly different architecture[0] from Pocketbase. We choose individual tools based on their scaling characteristics and give you the flexibility to add/remove tools as you see fit.

I doubt we can ever squeeze the "supabase stack" into a single binary. This undoubtedly makes things more difficult for self-hosters. Just self-hosting Postgres can be a challenge for many. We will trying to make it easier, but it will never be as simple as Pocketbase.

[0] https://supabase.com/docs/guides/getting-started/architectur...