I should start by disclosing that I work part time in the Oracle Database group, but - of course - my HN account is entirely my own, despite occasional mild shilling. The article itself is shilling for PlanetScale so that seems OK.
The author - certainly not deliberately! - says some untrue things about relational databases. The most important one is this:
> To understand why sharding is a necessary part of scaling relational databases...
But sharding isn't a necessary part of scaling relational databases. It's really just a requirement of simple databases like Postgres and MySQL.
If you want a relational database cluster that really does make 768 servers look like one, then you want what Oracle calls RAC ("real application clusters"). Your cloud will probably rent you access to one under a name like Autonomous Database. Self hosted it may be called ExaData, which is a unified hardware/software "rent a rack" style offering. You may be surprised to discover that it's not much more expensive than many managed Postgres offerings.
RAC can scale a non-sharded relational database horizontally. That means all queries can access all data, all SQL features like sequences and joins work, any server can take part in transactions with any other and in general it looks exactly like a really big single machine would. In other words, it's a synchronous multi-write-master system.
RAC scales very well. 768 servers is well within reach as long as your query patterns scale too i.e. don't all contend on writing to one row. Behind the scenes it uses a dedicated high speed RDMA network with lock coordination to transfer data blocks directly between nodes, never hitting disk for memory that's already in the buffer cache.
Additionally RAC is fully HA and supports rolling upgrades of the cluster whilst live. You don't need any NLBs or routers either. The client drivers automatically discover and load balance between nodes without needing intermediaries, transactions can start on one node and fail over to another without applications noticing, and so on. There's plenty of opportunity for caching and replication. You can run asynchronously replicated failover clusters, run multiple clusters in a Raft-driven globally coordinated super-cluster and can deploy coherent read-through caches anywhere; the main clusters will inform them the moment data in them becomes stale.
In other words, it can do a lot.
If for some reason you do need sharding then that's also supported with features like automatic sharding key distribution to client drivers that transparently route queries correctly, but most apps don't need this.
In case you're wondering why I say all this, firstly, obviously, I have a financial conflict of interest. But the database hasn't driven Oracle's stock price for a long time, so it's not a big one. These days it's all about cloud and AI.
No, the main reason is that HN fills up every month with blog posts where engineers talk about the incredible pain involved with scaling and running Postgres. And almost always, it's clear that they don't realize there's any alternative to that pain. It's not that they considered the options and then explain why they picked this one, it's that they think - as claimed in this article - that it's almost some fundamental limitation of reality itself, imposed by the laws of computer science.
There are lots of startups that lose time and money due to database problems they simply don't need to have. And that sucks. If they'd prefer to spend that time, pain and money to avoid using a DB from Oracle, fine, so be it. I won't argue with random devs about lawnmower memes. But if it's because they don't realize what's possible.... well, maybe someone will be helped by being aware of this. Database scaling problems are a choice, not an inevitability.