Many recent relational databases speak the Postgres wire protocol. For wholesale replacement, pgrust is a recent, contentious contender.

▲ gnabgib 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I hope you don't believe this, PGRust has fallen far from grace. Wire protocol support is useful (other than said recommendation)

Remove pgrust: the entry is cheating (per-query kernels and result caching) (197 points, 10 days ago, 166 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50205816

	▲	malisper 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I work on pgrust. We shouldn't have submitted the preview when we did: it was still in active development, and its SQL coverage was far too narrow, though there was nothing in it giving it an unfair performance advantage For the other two claims in the removal PR, we wrote scripts you can use to verify the behavior of the original 0.4-preview binary: `- Per-query kernels did not serve the benchmark queries[0] - The preview's fast repeat LIKE queries came from a dictionary filter cache, not a cached query result[1]` Our open-sourced 0.4-beta has now been merged and is back on ClickBench[2][3] Across all queries and instance sizes on ClickBench, 0.4-beta is ~7% faster overall than the 0.4-preview binary that was removed. If 0.4-preview's numbers had come from hardcoded kernels or faked results, the open-source general engine wouldn't be beating it [0] https://pgrust.com/downloads/archive/2026-09-clickbench-snap... [1] https://pgrust.com/downloads/archive/2026-09-clickbench-snap... [2] https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/ [3] https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/pull/2751