Pavlo is right to be skeptical about MCP security. The entire philosophy of MCP seems to be about maximizing context availability for the model, which stands in direct opposition to the principle of Least Privilege. When you expose a database via a protocol designed for 'context', you aren't just exposing data; you're exposing the schema's complexity to an entity that handles ambiguity poorly. It feels like we're jus…
Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
111–120 of 196 posts
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#112> "The Dominance of PostgreSQL Continues" It seems like the author is more focused on database features than user base. Every metric I can find online says that MySQL/MariaDB is more popular than PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL seems "better" (more features, better standards compliance) but MySQL/MariaDB works fine for many people. Am I living in a bubble?
It does feel like a lot of the momentum has shifted to PostgreSQL recently. You even see it in terms of what companies are choosing for compatibility. Google has a lot more MySQL work historically, but when they created a compatibility interface for Cloud Spanner, they went with PostgreSQL. ClickHouse went with PostgreSQL. More that I'm forgetting at the moment. It used to be that everyone tried for MySQL wire compatibility, but that doesn't feel like what's happening now.
If MySQL is making you happy, great. But there has certainly been a shift toward PostgreSQL. MySQL will continue to be one of the most used databases just as PHP will remain one of the most used programming languages. There's a lot of stuff already built with those things. I think most metrics would say that PHP is more widely deployed than NodeJS, but I think it'd be hard to argue that PHP is what the developer community is excited about.
Even search here on HN. In the past year, 4 MySQL stories with over 100 point compared to 28 PostgreSQL stories with over 100 points (and zero MariaDB stories above 100 points and 42 SQLite). What are we talking about here on HN? Not nearly as frequently MySQL - we're talking about SQLite and PostgreSQL. That's not to say that MySQL doesn't work great for you or that it doesn't have a large installed base, but it isn't where our mindshare is about the future.
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#113While the author mentions that he just doesn't have the time to look at all the databases, none of the reviews of the last few years mention immutable and/or bi-temporal databases. Which looks more like a blind spot to me honestly. This category of databases is just fantastic for industries like fintech. Two candidates are sticking out. https://xtdb.com/blog/launching-xtdb-v2 (2025) https://blog.datomic.com/2023/04/d…
Otherwise there are full bitemporal extensions for PG, like this one: https://github.com/hettie-d/pg_bitemporal
What we do is range types for when a row applies or not, so we get history, and then for 'immutability' we have 2 audit systems, one in-database as row triggers that keeps an on-line copy of what's changed and by who. This also gives us built-in undo for everything. Some mistake happens, we can just undo the change easy peasy. The audit log captures the undo as well of course, so we keep that history as well.
Then we also do an "off-line" copy, via PG logs, that get shipped off the main database into archival storage.
Works really well for us.
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#114From my perspective on databases, two trends continued in 2025: 1: Moving everything to SQLite 2: Using mostly JSON fields Both started already a few years back and accelerated in 2025. SQLite is just so nice and easy to deal with, with its no-daemon, one-file-per-db and one-type-per value approach. And the JSON arrow functions make it a pleasure to work with flexible JSON data.
Pardon my ignorance, yet wasn't the prevailing thought a few years ago that you would never use SQLite in production? Has that school of thought changed?
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#115Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#116> "The Dominance of PostgreSQL Continues" It seems like the author is more focused on database features than user base. Every metric I can find online says that MySQL/MariaDB is more popular than PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL seems "better" (more features, better standards compliance) but MySQL/MariaDB works fine for many people. Am I living in a bubble?
> Am I living in a bubble? There are rumblings that the MySQL project is rudderless after Oracle fired the team working on the open-source project in September 2025. Oracle is putting all its energy in its closed-source MySQL Heatwave product. There is a new company that is looking to take over leadership of open-source MySQL but I can't talk about them yet. The MariaDB Corporation financial problems have also spooke…
Not just the open-source project; 80%+ (depending a bit on when you start counting) of the MySQL team as a whole was let go, and the SVP in charge of MySQL was, eh, “moving to another part of the org to spend more time with his family”. There was never really a separate “MySQL Community Edition team” that you could fire, although of course there were teams that worked mostly or entirely on projects that were not open-sourced.
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#117Didn't know MongoDB was suing the company behind FerretDB. That's disgusting.
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#118Over the past 5 years there's been significant changes and several clear winners. Databricks and Snowflake have really demonstrated ability to stay resilient despite strong competition from cloud providers themselves, often through the privatization of what previously was open source. This is especially relevant given also the articles mentioning of how cloudera and hortonworks failed to make it.
I also think the quiet execution of databases like clickhouse have shown to be extremely impressive and have filled a niche that wasn't previously filled by an obvious solution.
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#119I can't believe that article has no mention of SQLite ??
Re: Databases in 2025: A Year in Review
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Analytics is done in "batches" (daily, weekly) anyways, right? We know you can't get both, row and column orders at the same time, and that continuously maintaining both means duplication and ensuring you get the worst case from both worlds. Local, row-wise writing is the way to go for write performance. Column-oriented reads are the way to do analytics at scale. It seems alright to have a sync process that does the…
Not all olap-like queries are for daily reporting. I agree that the basic architecture should be row order -> delay -> column order, but the question (in my mind) is balancing the length of that delay with the usefulness of column order queries for a given workload. I seem to keep running into workloads that do inserts very quickly and then batch reads on a slower cadence (either in lockstep with the writes, or concu…
I see. Can you come up with row/table watermarks? Say your column store is up-to-date with certain watermark, so any query that requires freshness beyond that will need to snoop into the rows that haven't made it into the columnar store to check for data up to the required query timestamp.
In the past I've dealt with a system that had read-optimised columnar data that was overlaid with fresh write-optimised data and used timestamps to agree on the data that should be visible to the queries. It continuously consolidated data into the read-optimised store instead of having the silly daily job that you might have in the extremely slow cadence reporting job you mention.
You can write such a system, but in reality I've found it hard to justify building a system for continuous updates when a 15min delay isn't the end of the world, but it's doable if you want it.
> I'm not so sure about "continuously maintaining both means duplication and ensuring you get the worst case from both worlds". Maybe you're right, I'm just not so sure. I agree that it's duplicating storage requirements, but is that such a big deal? And I think if fast writes and lookups and fast batch reads are both possible at the cost of storage duplication, that would actually be the best case from both worlds?
I mean that if you want both views in a consistent world, then writes will bring things to a crawl as both, row and column ordered data needs to be updated before the writing lock is released.