If you're willing to spend time making good indexes and using index hints as needed, you can get better performance/cost with MySQL. Note that PostgreSQL has advanced features not available with MySQL. BTW, you don't have to deal with Oracle with MySQL/MariaDB unless you want support from them.
One thing I'd really like to use is the MyRocks (RocksDB LSM-Tree) storage engine (instead of InnoDB) for MySQL. I don't know what the production usage status of this is, but it seems to be taking a long time getting adoption. I'd used TokuDB with Percona MySQL 5.7 and it was fantastic for high-write workloads.
I would choose PostgreSQL if operating cost doesn't matter much. Developer experience is much better. Less time spent on making queries run the way you mean them to.
I also have good experiences with MySQL replication and multi-writer configurations. This might be better now with PostgreSQL but it wasn't when I looked a long while ago.
What I'd probably rather use is Google Cloud Spanner or CockroachDB though, over either MySQL or PostgreSQL. The way you build queries is different--these work better with larger queries, not rapid small ones. So it's best to start with them than try to convert a working normal SQL system to a distributed one. If you really want to go SQL -> CockroachDB then PostgreSQL is probably better since CrDB supports (a subset of) the protocol (but is explicitly not compatible in terms of supported query features). Just googled it and it now says:
> CockroachDB supports the PostgreSQL wire protocol and the majority of PostgreSQL syntax.