Oh woah this looks great.
Quite amazing they put the effort into this for Postgres instead of SQL Server. The demand must be a lot higher.
Quite amazing they put the effort into this for Postgres instead of SQL Server. The demand must be a lot higher.
See here for the SQL server extension: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-mssql...
Just to clarify on the Azure Data Studio (ADS) point: the MSSQL extension includes many of the core features from ADS, but our strategy is slightly different and focused on a modern, developer-first experience.
Here’s the link to our open roadmap—would love to hear your thoughts: https://aka.ms/vscode-mssql-roadmap
Both teams seem to very much want developers to enjoy their tools, so please do send them feedback on what you need out of the tools.
Follow Carlos Robles if you want SQL server extension news: https://www.linkedin.com/in/croblesm/
Follow Joshua Johnson for PostgreSQL server extension news: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnsonjoshuae/
Not to mention that SQL "SDK-style" projects only work properly in VS Code, so Visual Studio users are left out in the cold having to deal with an incomplete, half-baked solution.
The biggest problem with the usability of Microsoft products today is short-sighted thinking. New features, platforms, frameworks etc are launched and then forgotten about just a few years later with no effort to tie into the groundwork of what came before.
You might think this is only a problem for old customers who are already accustomed to the old technologies, but that's not true: it burdens new customers too. There's a few reasons for this that I can think of.
1) It's hard for new customers to know what technologies they should be reaching for in what situations when there's so many different choices.
2) It's hard to find the right documentation for the technology you've picked because you have to browse through a ton of out-of-date documentation that wrongly refers to the deprecated technologies and it's not clear what the current recommendations are.
3) The new stuff is often built without consideration for the ways of thinking that the underlying platform was built with. Thus, you end up with weird idiosyncrasies as you move from one technology to another, which make it hard to learn and hard to use.
4) When you replace the old technologies you lose the benefit of community knowledge on platforms like Stack Overflow, you lose the ability to look at existing open-source projects for guidance, etc. You are basically going into uncharted territory where there are no clearly established patterns in the wild.
So, even new users coming on to your platform suffer from these deficits. That's not to say I don't appreciate all the work on these new powerful technologies like VS Code and .NET Platform and so on, but I think a more long-sighted vision for these products would go a long way. And it's not just a matter of looking forward, since you never know what's going to happen in the future with a product as organizational priorities change. It's also a matter of looking backwards at what came before, at what groundwork was laid by previous efforts, and how it can be best taken advantage of and re-used for future efforts. That is the biggest missing piece at Microsoft today in my opinion.
Feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn, and we can go from there: https://www.linkedin.com/in/croblesm/
Feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn, and we can go from there: https://www.linkedin.com/in/croblesm/
ADS is being sunset, and I was surprised when trying to install the Postgres extension on VS Code to find that it had its last meaningful contribution 6 years ago [0]. It couldn't work on newer VS Code versions.
I use ADS with both Postgres and MSSQL, prior to this announcement, I kept using ADS because there was nothing to migrate to.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-postgresql/commits/maste...
You can find workarounds, but it is an awful situation. Now the community is probably going to have to re-fork the library back to the public for maintenance.
I am clearly not a bean counter, but if Microsoft wants its database to win against the free options, they could do their best to ensure popular libraries can seamlessly connect.
https://github.com/microsoft/mssql-django/issues/418#issueco...
We’re still working on bringing over some Azure Data Studio features to the VS Code extension, especially around import/export (like flat file and DACPAC). I’d love to hear what else you think is missing.
If you’re interested, here’s our open roadmap: https://aka.ms/vscode-mssql-roadmap
I'm assuming they might want to move SSMS to VSCode in time, so trying it out by covering new ground, PostgreSQL, makes sense to me.
[1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ssms/sql-server-management...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2005...
They were really well designed, incredibly snappy and responsive. When SSMS was launched it was really slow and clunky on my computer.
I switched to Postgres around that time so I'm 20 years out of touch at this point.
We’re actively working to improve the experience, and learning what works for you in SSMS would be incredibly valuable.
As I’ve mentioned in a few other threads, the PostgreSQL team recently forked our MSSQL extension to kick off a fresh implementation for Postgres. It’s built on the same foundation we’re actively improving and evolving for both extensions.
From a consumer perspective, we're almost all benefiting.
From a business perspective, they get unpaid help and community brownie points.
Given that there are many Microsoft closed source extensions for VS Code, that cannot legally be used with the open source Version of VS Code, I would say they are not going all in. Knee deep maybe.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
Microsoft isn't "sincere" because it's just a business doing what businesses do, making money. They're not trying to be altruistic or principled. They're just doing business.
But I have personally benefited from this deal by having TypeScript and VS Code at my disposal.
Can you point out such recent behavior that isn't just echoing other peoples opinions from the anti-trust case from over two decades ago? It's been my experience that many people seem to "borrow" their opinion about Microsoft from things they've read rather than personal experience so we keep getting the same low-effort criticism ad nauseam.
Point to this marketing. Here's the blog announcement on the 1.0 releases - what I can't find are any examples of Microsoft over-promising.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160422123116/https://code.visu...
> MS locked things down... and MS has artificially prevented vscode forks from using those extensions
Or like any growing and maturing project they established boundaries - one of which was that the plugin marketplace was proprietary, which is a perfectly reasonable position. Their existing and continued contributions to vscode are significant, so I think they can be allowed to keep some cards up their sleeves like the plugin marketplace or their Python extension. I'm just flabbergasted at this idea that somehow we're entitled to everything vscode-adjacent "just because", or that Microsoft is obligated to subsidize other billion-dollar business by giving them free features for their vscode forks.
> A bait and switch if I've ever seen one.
Where's the bait? Where's the switch? If the best you have is that they released a closed source plugin I'm going to bucket this as another borrowed opinion.
It would have been fine if MS had started with their Python extension being proprietary, that would have been up front and transparent. Instead, they lured folks in (no small part due to open source), and once it became popular, they started turning the screws and making things proprietary and locking it down.
> I'm just flabbergasted at this idea that somehow we're entitled to everything vscode-adjacent "just because"
You're not arguing in good faith at this point. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to make their intentions known up front do you? Instead MS waited until vscode became popular (partly because everything was open source) and then altering the deal Vader style closing off parts of vscode and extensions that were open. That doesn't feel particularly transparent.
> or that Microsoft is obligated to subsidize other billion-dollar business by giving them free features for their vscode forks.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Vscodium is an entirely free and open source fork, no one makes any money from it afaik.
> Where's the bait? Where's the switch? If the best you have is that they released a closed source plugin I'm going to bucket this as another borrowed opinion.
They released the Python stack as fully open source. Then released the proprietary one, deprecating the open source one. Then made double certain that vscodium or any of the other forks could not use it at all, even if the use manually downloaded the extension. How is that not a bait and switch?
Except that never happened. Pyright was released first and was and continues to be open source. Pylance was built on Pyright but has never been open source. No promises or commitments were made otherwise. Deprecating the open source Python Language Server in favor of Pylance is also a perfectly reasonable and valid decision - the community was more than welcome to continue maintaining it, but most people I know continue to rely on Pylance.
> Instead, they lured folks in
Saying this doesn't make it true.
> Instead, they lured folks in (no small part due to open source), and once it became popular, they started turning the screws and making things proprietary and locking it down.
Microsoft has not once backtracked on anything vscode-related that's been open sourced. Trying to villianize them for not making everything open source is an argument with no legs.
> I don't think it is unreasonable to ask someone to make their intentions known up front do you?
They have. Point me to a single actual example of Microsoft operating in bad faith, that isn't them deciding to keep some parts of the ecosystem proprietary while 99% remains FOSS.
> Vscodium is an entirely free and open source fork
Microsoft and the vscode team is not making long-term decisions with vscodium in mind. But they are probably worried about Windsurf and Cursor, the latter of which (a billion-dollar company) was caught violating MS's TOS around the plugin ecosystem.
Microsoft has spent over a decade investing in, curating, and improving the vscode first-party plugin ecosystem and being a rather good steward. I think they're perfectly reasonable in keeping it to themselves. Creators are free to upload their plugins to any alternative marketplace. I don't see any arguments being made that can diminish the open source contribution they've made with code - oss just because parts of the branded vscode are proprietary.
> They released the Python stack as fully open source.
Again, no they didn't. Pyright open source. Pylance always closed source. PLS deprecated. But you're entitled to what you borrowed.
No, the first Python extension that shipped with vscode 1.0 in 2016 was called the "Microsoft Python Language Server" and was based on the Jedi LSP. Below is the deprecation announcement of the Jedi language server in the Pylance launch post below.
> In the short-term, you will still be able to use the Microsoft Python Language Server as your choice of language server when writing Python in Visual Studio Code. > Our long-term plan is to transition our Microsoft Python Language Server users over to Pylance and eventually deprecate and remove the old language server as a supported option. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/python/announcing-pylance-fas...
> But they are probably worried about Windsurf and Cursor, the latter of which (a billion-dollar company) was caught violating MS's TOS around the plugin ecosystem.
If that were so, I would certainly understand. However, MS started closing vscode and the extensions years before Windsurf and Cursor (initial release in 2023). This was their business model all along get adoption in partly by leveraging the open source community, and then close things off slowly once they have a choke hold (similar to Android/AOSP). I could scarcely agree more that Windserf and Cursor are supremely sketchy and generally scummy companies.
Consider MS launch announcement that focuses on open source, extensibility, open community, and a promise to be transparent with their intentions (i.e., vision) and roadmap...
> From the beginning, we’ve striven to be as open as possible in our roadmap and vision for VS Code, and in November, we took that a step further by open-sourcing VS Code and adding the ability for anyone to make it better through submitting issues and feedback, making pull requests, or creating extensions.
https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2016/04/14/vscode-1.0/#_...
Except they weren't open and did a u-turn on the community a few years later. MS started closing sources and locked things down a few years later despite touting the benefits of being open and open source in the announcement above. Now they have architected the Python extension so it only runs on vscode, and will not run at all on any fork, which is pretty shady after promising transparency and openness.
> The new, free language server
Pylance isn't the same extension as what was originally shipped, it's an entirely different product. Your link backs up my argument, not yours. Releasing an open source project doesn't not obligate them to continue supporting that project indefinitely, and the decision to migrate to a closed-source plugin is a perfectly valid and reasonable decision. Disagreeing with it doesn't mean they've somehow magically violated some implicit obligation you think they owe "the community".
> MS started closing vscode and the extensions years
They never "started". The plugin marketplace and vscode - the proprietary version of "Code - OSS" - has always been proprietary and closed. At no point did they give you something and take it away. Deciding to release a closed-source replacement for an open-source tool is not the same thing, and it's bad faith to argue otherwise to fit your fundamentally flawed argument.
> This was their business model all along get adoption in partly by leveraging the open source community
>Consider MS launch announcement that focuses on open source, extensibility, open community
You're relying on hand-wavy assertions without any evidence to back it up.
> Except they weren't open and did a u-turn on the community a few years later.
Where's the u-turn? I don't see anything in this post that's not true in 2025. Microsoft offers a curated plugin marketplace that's proprietary to vscode, and they provide distribution and hosting for free without requiring anything from creators and users. Pylance continues to be free but closed, Code - OSS continues to be FOSS, vscode continues to be a proprietary version of Code - OSS, plugin authors continue to upload products free-of-charge, and users continue to benefit from that community that Microsoft has fostered.
They've firmly established what their role is in this relationship. There's never been ambiguity between what's vscode closed-source and what's code - oss, unless you've not put in the effort to find out.
Point to an actual, concrete example of where they've acted in bad faith, did a "u-turn", or reneged on a public statement rather than hand-wavy generalizations. It's on you if you've relied on second-hand HN comments and news headlines to build your opinion, and relying on misunderstanding of context isn't a convincing argument.
Personal experience is irrelevant if the facts are not in doubt. One of these is that Microsoft was a pretty bad actor when nobody reigned them in, and I was around at the time.
> One of these is that Microsoft was a pretty bad actor when nobody reigned them in, and I was around at the time.
So was I (was working in Redmond at the time), and their behavior was no worse than what Apple or Google are up to today. The anti-trust case itself was 90% theater, Microsoft was let off with a slap on the wrist but somehow popular culture has decided it was much more devastating than it really was because it reinforces their "M$ bad" bias. It's hard for me not to chalk comments like this to the "borrowed" bucket rather than researched and well-informed opinion, and it just convinces me further than when it comes to Microsoft people are borrowing their opinions rather than earning them.
Yes, Microsoft made some dick moves over 25 years ago and paid for it. They continue to operate like every other business in 2025 despite being the largest company in the world by market cap. At some point folks can't keep pulling up this card like it's a wildcard-win-all.
In my opinion, Microsoft wants the good vibes and PR that comes with open source, but they don't actually want to be open source. Its why many people still don't trust them in this arena.
Yes, Microsoft has an history, yet it isn't as if there is any big corporation doing full open source across all their products, the large majority only does the part that somehow brings good vibes, cuts down their own R&D costs, or is a kind of suble way to find out about possible new employees.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
But they charge you an arm and a leg for the pleasure, but it can be worthwhile for enterprise.
MSSQL is extremely, extremely capable as a database engine.
But it also costs an arm and a leg. People who haven't used it don't know just how capable it is.
The reason people don't use them more often is that they're not free or even inexpensive.
plus they can take notes from Open source DB like postgress and improve their system better
that's every SQL server out there included Postgres. Is NoSQL considered as none-legacy?
I've helped create apps that support millions to hundreds of millions of revenue on Azure SQL Databases that cost at most a few hundred dollars per month. And you can get started with a S0 database for $15/mo which is absolutely suitable for production use for simple apps.
Unfortunately, I think Microsoft realized how good of a value the DTU-based model was, and has started pushing everyone to the vCore model, which dramatically increases the barrier to entry for Azure SQL Database, making PostgreSQL a much more attractive option. If Microsoft ever kills off the DTU purchasing model of Azure SQL Database, I likely won't be recommending or choosing Azure SQL Database at all going forward. It'll 100% be PostgreSQL.
When the client brought some 3rd party expert and he advised rewriting to MySQL, I quickly did the math and it was like $60/m, without a free year.
We continued with DTU MSSQL with Prisma ORM and never regreted.