Re: PostgreSQL as a Service - Mailing list pgsql-general

On 7/18/19 7:23 AM, Dirk Riehle wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> 
> tl;dr: How well is PostgreSQL positioned to serve as the database of 
> choice for a DBaaS operator? Specifically, how much open source is (may 
> be) missing?
> 
> ----
> 
> Im un-lurking hoping to learn more about PostgreSQL in DBaaS land.
> 
> You may have seen this announcement.
> 
> https://blog.yugabyte.com/why-we-changed-yugabyte-db-licensing-to-100-open-source/ 
> 
> 
> YugaByte bills itself as a PostgreSQL compatible database (yay to at 
> least the intent) but most importantly, it decided to single-license its 
> database under a permissive license, including "the enterprise features" 
> that frequently are held back by single-vendor open source firms who 
> want to earn a RoI for their VC investment.
> 
> The interesting part (and why I'm posting it here) is the following 
> staging of functionality implied in that post.
> 
> 1. Core database (permissively licensed)
> 2. Enterprise features (permissively licensed)
> 3. DBaaS features (trial license, commercial, no open source)
> 4. Managed by YugaByte (commercial)
> 
> Point 3. suggests that they want to make money from self-managed DBaaS, 
> but in the post they also write they really only expect significant 
> income from 4, i.e. YugaByte (the database) managed by YugaByte (the 
> company).
> 
> Where is PostgreSQL in relation to this?
> 
> 1. PostgreSQL itself is certainly 1 above, the core database.
> 
> 2. PostgreSQL permissive license allows commercial offerings to build 
> and not share enterprise features (and I'm sure some companies are 
> holding back). However, PostgreSQL is true community open source so 
> whatever enterprise features become relevant, they'll eventually be 
> commoditized and out in the open. Is there a lot that is missing? And 
> that some companies have but are not contributing?
> 
> 3. So, PostgreSQL as-a-service. There are several companies (plenty?) 
> who service PostgreSQL. I wonder how this is being shared back? I don't 
> have a clear picture here, my impression is that the software to run 
> these potentially large farms is proprietary? Or, that operators would 
> argue, this is all configuration and shell scripts and not really 
> shareable open source?
> 
> One aspect related to as-a-service is scaling out, i.e. not just having 
> many small customers, but also serving large customers in the cloud. I 
> looked around for scaling out solutions. There used to be CitusData (not 
> any longer it seems), there is PostgresXL which seems to be moving 
> slowly. Is that it?
> 
> 4. Managed DBaaS is not relevant here but always a commercial offering.
> 
> So, back to my main question above. If I wanted to run a DBaaS shop with 
> only PostgreSQL open source, how far away from being able to compete 
> with AWS or Azure (or YugaByte for that matter) would I be?

The difference in resources available. The pull of DBaaS as I see it is 
the being able to spin up db's as needed on a scale needed from one or 
more locations. All with a unified management fronted/API. Being 
competitive means being able to match that.

> 
> Thanks for any thoughts and opinions! Dirk
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com