> Postgres such a reliable and known quantity that IMO it should be the default choice for just about anything.
This is being repeated so often. And yet — the above is true, IF (and that's a big if for some of us) you are OK with having your database on a single machine.
If you want a distributed database with strict serializability, where some nodes can go down and you still get correct answers, Postgres is not it.
Totally agree. That's really my thinking as well. Default to Postgres unless you have a reason not to choose it, and a need for distributed serializability is one of those cases where Postgres is an easy "nope, not suitable."
But I've also been burned by people reflexively reaching for $SHINY_NEW_TOY by default, when really there is no need. Architects and senior-level devs are the worst offenders. They throw a bunch of needlessly buzzword-compliant infra at a problem and then move on. They have the time and freedom to learn $SHINY_NEW_TOY well enough to MVP a product, but then the project is passed on to people who don't have that luxury.
I feel like there's a progression that often happens:
1. Early engineers: stick to Postgres or another RDBMS because it's all they know
2. Mid-stage engineers with "senior" in their title for the first time: reach for $SHINY_NEW_TOY
3. Late-stage engineers: stick to Postgres because it's something the whole team already knows and they recognize the true long-term cost of throwing multiple new bits of software infra into the mix
This is being repeated so often. And yet — the above is true, IF (and that's a big if for some of us) you are OK with having your database on a single machine.
If you want a distributed database with strict serializability, where some nodes can go down and you still get correct answers, Postgres is not it.