[tudorg]

> It does give a "When all you have is a hammer..." vibe to me and begs the question: why not use a system that's designed for use-cases like this and do it reliably and securely ?

(disclaimer: blog post author)

A reason would be that you want to stick to pure Postgres, for example because you want to use Postgres extensions, or prefer the liberal Postgres license.

It can also be a matter of performance, distributed transactions are necessarily slower so if almost all the time you can avoid them by connecting to a single node, which has all the data that the transaction needs, that's going to get you better performance.

[hazaskull]

Hi there! Thank you for the post and your work on pgzx! Though it depends on the system (cockroachdb can place leaders on specific nodes to speed up local queries, it has global tables and otherwise there's always follower-reads) those are of course valid reasons. Admittedly if you want to keep data "pinned", you're into manual placement, rather than horizontal scaling but that's nitpicking and there's pros and cons. I do enjoy the freedom of Postgres and am hopeful that its virtually prehistoric storage-design becomes a non-issue thanks to tech such as Neon and Orioledb. The option to decouple storage would provide wonderful flexibility for solutions like yours too I think.

[tudorg]

Thanks for noticing pgzx! We are working on a project building on top of it and going into the direction hinted by this blog post.

I agree that the separation of storage and compute complements this nicely. In fact, we take advantage of it in the Xata platform which uses Aurora.