I’ve built a bunch of distributed architectures. In every case I did, we would have been better served with a monolith architecture and a single relational DB like Postgres. In fact I’ve only worked on one system that had the kind of scale that would justify the additional complexity of a distributed architecture. Ironically that system was a monolith with Postgres.
This...doesn't seem to support your case at all? Maybe if you'd turned all those distributed architectures into monoliths you would've then thought the distributed architecture was justified (since you have a 1 of 1 case where that was the case).
I'm guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately it's not very useful to the reader to say "well, some systems are better distributed, some systems are better as monolith". The interesting question is which is which.
Hm ok well I am not sure what you mean but its the internet so... <shrug>
What I am saying here is that you would be shocked at how far you can get with a simpler architecture. Distributed systems have massive trade offs and are the kind of thing you shouldn't do unless you are FORCED to.
Was your system built in a vacuum? I have to go back about 10 years for a system where we could choose for it not to be distributed (i.e. succeed or fail based on how well it handled messaging between partners)