I remember Postgres in the early 2000s, and it didn't have anywhere near this level of problems. It had its issues, especially in terms of performance, and there were of course occasional correctness bugs that tended to turn up when you were doing something unusual. But you could certainly rely on basic SQL operations to work correctly.

I remember Postgres in the early 2000s. And early Mongo. And many others.

And bugs like “WHERE 4 = 5”, or selecting from nonexistent columns, or selects permanently modifying table behavior, or any of a dozen others that Jepsen found … didn’t happen in released databases. Even young ones.

Prior to the age of LLMs, that level of bugginess wasn’t “everything has growing pains”. That’s the kind of thing previously associated with poor undergraduate CS homework or “the CEO’s kid wrote our database” corporate horrorshows.

> with no QA

That’s not immaturity. That is a choice. A “the car we are selling does not have airbags, seat belts, or brakes” kind of choice.

> Maybe you don't know too much about engineering

Save it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

> Maybe you don't remember Postgres in the early 2000s.

Not even the grungiest version of MySQL 3.23 running on some shared hosting provider in the early 2000s would behave as immediately illogically as the database under test here.

Someone with your username should know this.

> Maybe you don't remember Postgres in the early 2000s

Postgres was already mature by the early 2000s - it was started in 1986 by a veteran who had written Postgres' spiritual predecessor in the 70's (Ingress). So no, Postgres didn't have amateur-hour data loss bugs in the early 2000s. What Postgres was missing out of the box were some features, like replication.

> Maybe you don't remember Postgres in the early 2000s

The ParticleDB devs definitely don't

@dang I think HN should revoke and reserve this username.

Edit: I know @dang does nothing but maybe make it more likely he sees it.