Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sMstB-005HhS-1E for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:26:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sMst9-00CDbd-9u for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:26:27 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sMst8-00CDbV-VR for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:26:27 +0000 Received: from box.lobeshare.net ([45.221.132.108]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sMst6-003r7F-VO for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:26:26 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=lobeshare.co.za; s=mail; t=1719509180; bh=2+FS9PT7eP4OF29NwWQ6rEFsYu1/MhRdAYf2j/bbmmY=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FD8dgfA3HMZUAW4C9MMB2NOorCPIDlsJPqEBFnvBOdD/PquK4Y9zKOc/0eA10xdiv /VEKKYbohstREtELvJuLQVbSdZkS4lpeubVzoSli2F5nSRmT8pR7K5J+abd8+z7KME EVFtiqBzdaq34K8XQ47jK/bKkGGft1KHmH2DgjK9ESIXmUd5tmYpkXunVfO6YrLN1o vnEGxVGrXRpICt4noXCTSbQJebNIuq4GiIxcjG7Lfch7tR1bIXvgHhDYOktBe9Nq6G +P3dxPWRkmkOcfIDzx1TJPLh3mjeaS/H4kXUcdBX+w73MD+QlV2ZiRQjMd8+uMd0ib SevwLBsnkIfsw== Received: from authenticated-user (box.lobeshare.net [45.221.132.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by box.lobeshare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C17273E01CC; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:26:20 +0200 (SAST) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:26:19 +0200 Subject: Re: Alignment check From: Marthin Laubscher To: Adrian Klaver , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Alignment check References: <7644D22D-BFB3-4471-B077-30797AA838FC@lobeshare.co.za> In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 2024/06/27, 19:04, "Adrian Klaver" > 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 Kubernetes is a "single platform" but it provides the same facilities in all of its guises from bare metal implementations to what you can rent on demand from public clouds. I've made peace with that being about as cloud-agnostic as 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 which would only make sense if it unlocked a massive performance upside. For all intents and purposes I'm already locked into PostgreSQL as my application's database because it's reliant on a custom extension like no other database would let me do. But single database isn't single vendor, as long as it's open source. If YugabyteDB did support my extension (I tried but they won't consider for their DBaaS/Managed/Yugabyte Anywhere/Yugabyte Aeon commercial product built on top of an old version of PostgreSQL) it would have meant that in a pinch I could rent additional capacity from their commercial offering while I expand my own points of presence. That kite's not going to fly though, so I'm back to dealing with all of the 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.