I think that the key point being made by this crowd, of which I'm one, is somewhere in the middle. The way I mean it is "Make Postgres your default choice. Also *you* probably aren't doing anything special enough to warrant using something different".

In other words, there are people and situations where it makes sense to use something else. But most people believing they're in that category are wrong.

> Also you probably aren't doing anything special enough to warrant using something different".

I always get frustrated by this because it is never made clear where the transition occurs to where you are doing something special enough. It is always dismissed as, "well whatever it is you are doing, I am sure you don't need it"

Why is this assumption always made, especially on sites like HackerNews? There are a lot of us here that DO work with scales and workloads that require specialized things, and we want to be able to talk about our challenges and experiences, too. I don't think we need to isolate all the people who work at large scales to a completely separate forum; for one thing, a lot of us work on a variety of workloads, where some are big enough and particular enough to need a different technology, and some that should be in Postgres. I would love to be able to talk about how to make that decision, but it is always just "nope, you aren't big enough to need anything else"

I was not some super engineer who already knew everything when I started working on large enough data pipelines that I needed specialized software, with horizontal scaling requirements. Why can't we also talk about that here?