Hacker News Reader

Comment by talkingtab | Hacker News Reader

Why is this a good idea? In my experience, getting Postgres up and running is trivial. Docker anyone? And in many cases your data is your business so why hand it off? And if you are going to offer this product why not just call it what it is, "Postgres as service", instead of serverless which seems a bit misleading. Really it is simply Postgres running on your server.

View on HN

Not everyone can manage a database properly and, sorry to say this to you but, Docker is a terrible idea for a database in general. Setting up your own database somewhere still puts your trivial data on someone else's server more or less.

All these "Serverless" keywords pretty much mean you don't have to be spinning up servers (cloud) or setting up & maintaining one. Nothing is "Serverless" per-se so it's time to move on from picking on this, I agree, bad choice of words.

> Docker is a terrible idea for a database in general

Why? Genuine question, my gut feel is there's something wrong about it too but I can't put words to it nor have I found a benchmark that convinced me, but it's worth noting I'm not sure what I'm looking for

I manage about 200 servers and docker crashing accounts for 20%+ of my issues so far. The servers are brought up easily on crash and that's not an issue for my services. For a database docker is nothing more than an extra layer of complications on top with iptables, volume system and all the layers it brings. It's just a bad wrapper for a production database which needs stability.

To be fair, that sounds like a problem with your infra. There are plenty of enterprises running Postgres in Docker/Kubernetes successfully. A lot of technical problems are not the stack or the engineer's capability, but the company culture and lack of funding, time or resources. If you had more of all 3, im sure your problem could be "solved" to an acceptable margin of error. Likely by you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com