Thread: Alignment check
Hi,
I don’t intend dissing or plugging anyone’s efforts or start a flame war, but I’d like to get a sense of how the PostgreSQL community feels about:
a) YugabyteDB, and
b) PostgreSQL on Kubernetes.
For my application I’m deeply vested in Kubernetes as a pathway to being cloud-agnostic and I have looked at YugabyteDB because it matches my application’s (distributed) architecture more closely.
But not all the ways to run PostgreSQL on Kubernetes are created equal, and YugabyteDB is really far behind on versions and do not support extensions in a way that’s useful to me.
So seeing that I’ve taken the plunge to join the mailing lists at least I’d love to hear any and all feedback on those two topics from the these parts of the woods.
--- Thanks for your time – Marthin Laubscher
On 6/27/24 09:07, Marthin Laubscher wrote: > Hi, > > I don’t intend dissing or plugging anyone’s efforts or start a flame > war, but I’d like to get a sense of how the PostgreSQL community feels > about: > a) YugabyteDB, and > b) PostgreSQL on Kubernetes. > > For my application I’m deeply vested in Kubernetes as a pathway to being > cloud-agnostic and I have looked at YugabyteDB because it matches my And substituted a single platform dependence. > application’s (distributed) architecture more closely. > But not all the ways to run PostgreSQL on Kubernetes are created equal, > and YugabyteDB is really far behind on versions and do not support > extensions in a way that’s useful to me. Which now leads you to above. > > So seeing that I’ve taken the plunge to join the mailing lists at least > I’d love to hear any and all feedback on those two topics from the these > parts of the woods. > > --- Thanks for your time – Marthin Laubscher > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 2024/06/27, 19:04, "Adrian Klaver" <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote: > And substituted a single platform dependence. Even bare metal can lock you in without some abstraction layer between your code and the hardware. It's true that Kubernetesis a "single platform" but it provides the same facilities in all of its guises from bare metal implementationsto what you can rent on demand from public clouds. I've made peace with that being about as cloud-agnosticas I can realistically achieve. > Which now leads you to above. To me that's a good thing. I've got no time for puristic idealism. It's a pragmatic choice which always involve compromises."Compromise knowingly", an old manager of mine used to say. Yugabyte, if I did go with it, would have been a tough choice because it would lock me into them as database vendor whichwould only make sense if it unlocked a massive performance upside. For all intents and purposes I'm already locked intoPostgreSQL as my application's database because it's reliant on a custom extension like no other database would let medo. But single database isn't single vendor, as long as it's open source. If YugabyteDB did support my extension (I triedbut they won't consider for their DBaaS/Managed/Yugabyte Anywhere/Yugabyte Aeon commercial product built on top of anold version of PostgreSQL) it would have meant that in a pinch I could rent additional capacity from their commercial offeringwhile I expand my own points of presence. That kite's not going to fly though, so I'm back to dealing with all ofthe data distribution logic in my application layer itself. So when you're done trolling me and my choices, feel free to comment on the actual question.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:26 PM Marthin Laubscher <postgres@lobeshare.co.za> wrote:
[snip]
So when you're done trolling me and my choices,
Adrian didn't start this "conversation".
feel free to comment on the actual question.
YB says they are almost finished updating their system to the PG 15 (not sure which point release) codebase; it could already be in beta.
Maybe your extension will work on the new version.
On 6/27/24 10:26, Marthin Laubscher wrote: > On 2024/06/27, 19:04, "Adrian Klaver" <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote: >> And substituted a single platform dependence. > > Even bare metal can lock you in without some abstraction layer between your code and the hardware. It's true that Kubernetesis a "single platform" but it provides the same facilities in all of its guises from bare metal implementationsto what you can rent on demand from public clouds. I've made peace with that being about as cloud-agnosticas I can realistically achieve. > >> Which now leads you to above. > > To me that's a good thing. I've got no time for puristic idealism. It's a pragmatic choice which always involve compromises."Compromise knowingly", an old manager of mine used to say. > > Yugabyte, if I did go with it, would have been a tough choice because it would lock me into them as database vendor whichwould only make sense if it unlocked a massive performance upside. For all intents and purposes I'm already locked intoPostgreSQL as my application's database because it's reliant on a custom extension like no other database would let medo. But single database isn't single vendor, as long as it's open source. If YugabyteDB did support my extension (I triedbut they won't consider for their DBaaS/Managed/Yugabyte Anywhere/Yugabyte Aeon commercial product built on top of anold version of PostgreSQL) it would have meant that in a pinch I could rent additional capacity from their commercial offeringwhile I expand my own points of presence. That kite's not going to fly though, so I'm back to dealing with all ofthe data distribution logic in my application layer itself. > > So when you're done trolling me and my choices, feel free to comment on the actual question. > Not trolling just pointing out what you described above. Sometimes simple is not and you end up going through all sorts of contortions to stick to the plan. Just an observation take it or leave as you like. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com