Re: PostgreSQL as a Service

Thanks for the pointer to BDR!

As to CitusData, you are right. The Microsoft acquisition does not seem to
have led to absorption. Rather, it remains an open core play. This also
means its DBaaS layer is not open source.

Cheers, Dirk

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 16:50 Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 18/7/19 5:23 μ.μ., 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?
> There is also the Bidirectional Replication project (BDR). Also Why the
> comment about CitusData? I would the guess the opposite is true.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks for any thoughts and opinions! Dirk
> >
>
>
> --
> Achilleas Mantzios
> IT DEV Lead
> IT DEPT
> Dynacom Tankers Mgmt
>
>
>
>