Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't there Parse from firebase
Parse was bought by Facebook and not much longer shut it down right?
I am confused , there was also Fabric.io bought by Twitter and then put into Firebase by Google .
Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
161–170 of 194 posts
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#162Supabase also announced this week Oriole (the team not just the table storage plugin) is joining them so I guess this is part of the same story. Anyway it's nice timing I was thinking about a hookup to Cloudflare R2 for something and this may be the way.
Oriole are joining to work on the OrioleDB postgres extension. That's slightly different to this release: - This: for managing large files in s3 (videos, images, etc). - Oriole: a postgres extension that's a "drop-in replacement" for the default storage engine We also hope that the team can help develop Pluggable Storage in Postgres with the rest of the community. From the blog post[0]: > Pluggable Storage gives deve…
What's the point of acquiring them instead of just sponsering the project? I'm trying to understand supabase's angle here and if this is good or bad news for non-supabase postgres users.
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#163This is great news. Now I can utilize any CDN provider that supports S3. Like bunny.net [1] which has image optimization, just like Supabase does but with better pricing and features. I have been developing with Supabase past two months. I would say there are still some rough corners in general and some basic features missing. Example Supabase storage has no direct support for metadata [2][3]. Overall I like the laun…
I've not done a whole lot with S3 but is this due to it being easy to sync between storage providers that support S3 or something?
I'm more used to Azure Blob Storage than anything, so I'm OOL on what people do other than store files on S3.
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> neutered Can you share more? There is nothing missing, it’s all the same code that we run in production (besides some login changes to keep it decoupled from the platform)
Sure. I wouldn't quite agree with you that "there is nothing missing" though. https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444 https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4421
I believe that the self hosted version is missing auth hooks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Supabase/comments/1bpaq9w/comment/k...
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#165Is there a formal s3 protocol spec or do these companies try to reverse engineer/feature match what AWS provides?
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#166Is there a formal s3 protocol spec or do these companies try to reverse engineer/feature match what AWS provides?
The S3 API isn't unknown or anything, the client library SDKs all being open source. So I'd imagine a software developer writing a tool that aims to be S3 API-compliant would use one of the open source SDKs, and write their API while making requests to it locally through a client from one of the Amazon SDKs. Not trivial effort, but also pretty easy to imagine how you'd start off. If a client function from the SDK doesn't work with your API, you write your API handler to handle the HTTP request that function makes until it is supported.
I have wondered if Amazon has some additional tooling for other software providers to make their own S3-compliant APIs, but I don't know what Amazon's motivation would be to help make it easier for people to switch between other vendors. Whereas the incentive is much more obvious for other software vendors to make their own APIs S3-compliant. So I've so far imagined it is a similar process to how I described above, instead.
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. I wouldn't quite agree with you that "there is nothing missing" though. https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444 https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4421
thanks for the links > https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444 This discussion is about configuration: self-hosters configure configure their services in code[0], using .env vars / docker-compose.yml and should be checking it into source control. Self-hosters are not missing any functionality - the opposite actually: we have a subset of configuration items available on the platform I get that it's different…
[deleted]
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. I wouldn't quite agree with you that "there is nothing missing" though. https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444 https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4421
thanks for the links > https://github.com/orgs/supabase/discussions/4444 This discussion is about configuration: self-hosters configure configure their services in code[0], using .env vars / docker-compose.yml and should be checking it into source control. Self-hosters are not missing any functionality - the opposite actually: we have a subset of configuration items available on the platform I get that it's different…
(FYI: I saw a deleted comment that this requires a restart: the same is true on the platform)
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#169Friendly reminder that Supabase is really cool, and if you haven't tried it out you should do it (everything can be self hosted and they have generous free tiers!)
their team is crazy good
Re: Supabase Storage now supports the S3 protocol
#170Here is the example of the DuckDB querying parquet files directly from Storage because it supports the S3 protocol now - https://github.com/TylerHillery/supabase-storage-duckdb-demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diL00ZZ-q50
Yes. Duckdb works very well with parquet scans on s3 right now.
Does it work well with Hive tables storing parquet files on s3?