I first read the title as "Globally Distributed Progress" and I was like "if an article with this title made it to the front page of HN it must sure be some interesting read.
Me too, having worked with PGSQL in past 15 years, I was expecting...something else. But what bothers me the most is their 2 times quote: "HTTP is cheap". No, it's not. Try having local local servers in remote locations, like ski resorts or country side fair, where internet connectivity is sketchy at best, and then you'll realize how cheap a request is.
HTTP is cheap! Latency is expensive, but all our HTTP shenanigans happen between our proxy and user VMs. We're not inflicting multiple requests on slow clients at a ski resort.
Comments
I first read the title as "Globally Distributed Progress" and I was like "if an article with this title made it to the front page of HN it must sure be some interesting read.
I am now slightly disappointed.
It is pretty boring. But "the most boring possible way to build globally distributed postgres" is interesting, I think.
Me too, having worked with PGSQL in past 15 years, I was expecting...something else. But what bothers me the most is their 2 times quote: "HTTP is cheap". No, it's not. Try having local local servers in remote locations, like ski resorts or country side fair, where internet connectivity is sketchy at best, and then you'll realize how cheap a request is.
HTTP is cheap! Latency is expensive, but all our HTTP shenanigans happen between our proxy and user VMs. We're not inflicting multiple requests on slow clients at a ski resort.