No, you get a DBMS and only change the storage underneath. You can't use S3 for appending to WAL though.
All those can be fixed besides the latency for a cold GET from S3 and appending WAL to S3.
I think what you mean is what we have implemented a side channel DBMS which holds a copy which you use for the transactionality. It's a terrible approach I would not do this at all you don't get any benefit from using s3 here.
This is not to say you can't use s3 to pull large blob storage off the DB and reference it in the DB I'm talking about the entire DB as s3.
Yes, it can be done, except for WAL append & COLD GET. You "just" have to re-architect everything in the storage layer.
Do you have anything specific in mind besides the 2 things I mentioned?
I already said my points about the problems your follow-up comments have not addressed those.
Also there is no such thing in s3 as a cold GET there is a cold startup for a lambda. The latency from s3 on a get is orders of magnitude poorer that EBS or LSSD and should be used "infrequently".
> What about transactionality, partial updates, running multi document queries, consistency of the whole set of documents.
You do that in another layer on top. The filesystem doesn't provide transactions, yet you do them on a layer on top.
> In terms of scalability there are, limits 3500rps per key prefix.
The S3 metadata is (was?) sharded on key-prefix. You fix this by using more prefixes. By hashing the filenames or something.
> The latency from s3 on a get is orders of magnitude poorer that EBS or LSSD and should be used "infrequently".
Yes, it is. You should use a local SSD for most things.
See warpstream as example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37036291