hydra VS postgres

Don't feel bad, lots of people get bitten by not reading all the way down to the bottom of their readme: https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra/blob/v1.1.2/README.md... While Hydra may very well license their own code Apache 2, they ship the AGPLv3 columnar which to my very best IANAL understanding taints the whole stack and AGPLv3's everything all the way through https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra/blob/v1.1.2/columnar/...

Columnar store PostgreSQL extension exists, here are two but I think I’m missing at least another one:

https://github.com/citusdata/cstore_fdw

https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra

You can also connect other stores using the foreign data wrappers, like parquet files stored on an object store, duckdb, clickhouse… though the joins aren’t optimised as PostgreSQL would do full scan on the external table when joining.

New column store alternative : https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra

HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37571974

some previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37247945

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36987920

and a relevant observation is that there are actually multiple license files in the repo so the consumer should read their explicit licensing section of the readme <https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra#license> since the GitHub sidebar is misleading

Hydra DB Link to Github -> Worked well for aggregated query usecases but not for queries that build reports. Also, data insertion and updation is abyssmal on columnar dbs.

There's a lot of experience about db operation and how to approach MVCC encoded in PostgreSQL that shouldn't be underestimated.

[0]: https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra

And just like last time, watch out for the misleading GitHub license detector because it's not entirely Apache as the GitHub summary claims but rather *some* is Apache and buried in the interior is some AGPL stuff: https://github.com/hydradatabase/hydra#license

Our fork of Postgres is located at https://github.com/neondatabase/postgres.

That is true. And that is why we do not have the UI for loading extension binaries and do not give root access to the compute node. Yet. Of course, some containerization is in place, but it is not as tight as we would like for arbitrary code execution.

Still, there are no technical limitations. Our test suite already uses Neon-specific SQL functions from a C extension (https://github.com/neondatabase/postgres/tree/7faa67c3ca53fc...). At the very least, providing a lot of popular extensions out-of-the-box is on our roadmap once we figure out the security, no special repacking needed. As compute nodes should already be pretty isolated from each other, I don't think allowing arbitrary will require a redesign.