More broadly I think this is an issue with a narrow definition of "time series", aside from the DB angle. When I was doing more forecasting and predictive modeling, I was constantly stymied by "time series" resources only considering univariate time series, where my problems were always extremely multivariate (and also rarely uniformly sampled...).
When I've asked around for other vocabulary here, the options are slim. Panel data can work, but that has more to do with there being both a time and spatial dimension (e.g. group, cohort, user, etc.) than there being multiple metrics observed over time. It's also an unfamiliar term for data scientist folks without a traditional stats background. "Multivariate time series" might be technically correct, but that works much better in the modelling domain than the database domain.
For example: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.47... (This being a not fully settled / exploited area of computational science, there are plenty of alternative interpretations, too.)
The main challenge here is that extending relational algebra ("key tuple maps to row") into time ("key tuple maps to function from time to row") essentially cross-products two different dimensions, creating a much bigger domain to process and reason about.
Once you have the theory down, you can express some pretty handy relationships.
For you functional folks, you can consider the TRA as the regular RA lifted into the time monad. Except the composition can also go cross-wise; TRA can also be considerd as the narrow timeline lifted into the relational monad. Fun times!
Additionally, often we believe our application needs feature X, and there is some database tech that purports to excel at X, the fact is postgres is probably able to do X unless you get to some extreme velocity or volume. Furthermore, by going with another database you are almost always giving up on features W, Y, and Z that you don't realize you need that Postgres supports and isn't supported by the "Exotic" database you are thinking of.
In short, Postgres has amazing breadth and depth in features and support and tooling. Be sure you are ok giving that up!
This btw is one of the reasons I love Postgres - its extensibility.
(Disclaimer: TimescaleDB cofounder)
I would say, Postgres is not too storage efficient in itself for large amounts of data, especially if you need any sorts of indexes. Timescale basically mitigates that by automatically creating new table in the background ("chunks") and keeping individual tables small.
When compression is enabled, TimescaleDB converts data stored in many rows into an array. This means that instead of using lots of rows to store the data, it stores the same data in a single row. Because a single row takes up less disk space than many rows, it decreases the amount of disk space required, and can also speed up some queries.
(Timescale employee)