On 2024/06/27, 19:04, "Adrian Klaver" <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 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.
