There's no mention of sharding whatsoever. Without that this has very little to do with Planetscale and is much closer to your average managed DB (RDS etc.). There's also no mention of a bouncer/gateway/reverse proxy, which is necessary for zero downtime.

I get that Planetscale hosts "vanilla" Postgres instances but naturally those are limited by single instance size limits. I imagine this is predominantly a marketing strategy for them, acting as a funnel for their sharding products.

But perhaps that's the goal with this project, to not be Planetscale at all, and to focus on the single node. If that's the case, then great, best of luck, but the roadmap is missing some important pieces for me to take this seriously. In either case I find drawing comparison with Planetscale to not be very helpful or illustrative of the project and its goals.

I have to say that my experiences with running virtualized relational database servers on top of Ceph centralized storage have shown somewhat disappointing performance, so I think that could become a real challenge if performance is or becomes a goal. However, I've encountered multiple mentions that Ceph performance is supposed to increase significantly as the number of storage nodes increases (from a handful to a dozen to much larger clusters) and while I cannot corroborate this from personal experience, it stands to reason that "throwing more (hardware) resources at the problem" can make a big difference.

  - xata - https://xata.io/blog/xatastor-zfs-nvme-of-for-millions-of-postgres-databases
  - neon - which has a more sophisticated architecture that builds abstractions at the Postgres layer

It annoys me when people claim they've "easily and quickly" built something that took many developers many months or years worth of work and optimization to build a solid product.

It's like someone who generates a pretty looking HTML page with an LLM and claims they've built a customer-facing product. So much slop these days...