For context for the others, I think you are referring to this blog post: https://xata.io/blog/open-source-postgres-branching-copy-on-... (in particular the "The key is in the storage system" section) right?

What I'm saying there is that if you do Postgres with on top of a local ZFS volume, the child branches Postgres instances need to be on the same server. So you are limited in how many branches you can do. One or two are fine, but if you want to do a branch per PR, that will likely not work.

If you separate the compute from storage via the network, this problem goes away.

▲

zbentley 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

ZFS snapshots can be transmitted over the network, with some diff-only and deduplication gains if the remote destination has an older instance of the same ZFS filesystem. It’s not perfect, and the worst case is still a full copy, but the tooling and efficiency wins for the ordinary case are battle-tested and capable.

	▲	tee-es-gee 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, for sure, and stuff like this is really useful when rebalancing storage nodes, for example. My point is that for the use case of offering a Postgres service with CoW branching as a key feature, you can't really escape some form of separation of storage and compute. Btw, don't really want to talk too much about it yet, but our proprietary storage engine (Xatastor) is basically ZFS exposed over NVMe-OF. We'll announce it in a couple of weeks, and we'll have a detailed technical blog post then on pros/cons.

▲

sastraxi 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

You're still making the assumption in this comment: why does my 2nd (cloned) database need a separate postgres instance? One postgres server can host multiple databases.

	▲	tee-es-gee 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Got it, yes, I've seen in the other comment that you're referring to the new Postgres 18 feature. If that works for you in local dev, so much the better :)