If you had to make a few users and passwords and specify which tables were allowed for different users it is only because you chose to design your app this way. You must have felt there was some good reason to divide it up like that.
If that was the case, sqlite would have been unsuitable for your needs.
In other words, the complexity you describe was not caused by postgres. It was caused by your app design. Postgres was able to accommodate your app in a way that sqlite cannot.
Sqlite does have the "it's all contained in this single file" characteristic though. So if and when that's an advantage, there is that. Putting postgres in a container doesn't exactly provide the same characteristic.
For young impressionable readers, this is just a note that the parent comment is one person's opinion. There are opposing opinions here and throughout society.
I think I made it clear that it’s my opinion, when I used the words “in my opinion”.
Your comment is a passive aggressive way of saying you disagree. I expect some people will disagree.
I’m one of those dangerous people not afraid to break rules, any rules, if it’s my judgement that the breaking the rule will lead to the better outcome for all involved. A lot of people don’t live that way and can’t fathom that kind of attitude. I don’t always make the right judgment call, but I’m not going to shirk the responsibility of making a judgment call, nor be afraid of making it. I’m willing to take responsibility for the consequences of my actions.
If you follow all the rules blindly, you are still a child.
I think it would be super interesting if there became a GMail of Matrix--one super-dominant provider--but it was still possible to have Fastmail and Protonmail etc of Matrix. So you could actually still host your own little community that could still interact with the giant gorilla even if it was challenging to do so. Imagine that whichever federated protocol were extended with spam-blocking features that complicated federation such that it was even harder to run a server than it is today. But it was still possible, especially for those with enough money.
So every once in a while a newcomer like TikTok could blow up and become a fad, but some old grandma could just keep plugging away on their hilariously old-school service and still follow their granddaughter's high school swim team hosted on the hip new shiny service all the kids are going for today.
Ellsberg very eloquently articulated the fallacy that juniors were less trustworthy. I don't think their junior status is an issue. I think perhaps the bigger concern is their quantity. I'll leave it to probability and game theory experts to discuss whether it is better or worse to have more people capable of wielding such a weapon.
Very little has actually changed about the quality of politicians in the US. People are just prone to forgetting the bad. Not that long ago - the 1970s - the south was overflowing with ignorant, racist politicians that were outright fans of the KKK and aggressively pro segregation. And so on it goes if you keep going backwards in time.
What has primarily changed is the quantity of levers and how massive the levers are at their disposal. The surface area of potential corruption has radically expanded in the US over the post WW2 era (part of that expansion of power was the military industrial complex and the superpower bureaucracy that went along with it). The larger and more complex the government, the more laws it has on the books to utilize, the greater the corruption, inevitably.
Oh, and now every idiot has easy access to an epic scale bullhorn via social media. That's amplifying the stupid, which would not have received much press time or public discourse time in past generations.
That's a completely different topic. I'm tired of hearing people spout about a legal obligation to grow.
If you mean "it will hurt somebody's feelings" don't say "it's illegal". Those words do not mean the same thing.
If a company earned a $1 dividend for the last five years and the stock price is $10, what is wrong with paying out $1 dividend again next year and having the stock price stay at $10?
If a stockholder wants a bigger payout they can sell their share and invest the $10 in some other stock and take their chances.
Personally, I think a $10 share that pays out $1 and is still worth $10 is incredible. It doesn't bother me at all that neither the price nor the dividend has grown. It doesn't bother me that the square meters of manufacturing floor space hasn't grown. I don't mind that the number of employees hasn't grown. It's ok that the number of SKUs has stayed the same.
I'm not convinced that people who are not paying Redhat for RHEL Workstation support count as customers on this question.
But this is still an odd statement. Previous customers who very much relied on LibreOffice might move to some other platform or at least some other support service. Thus they would no longer be Redhat customers and Redhat would still be loyal to their customers.
I suspect the number of RHEL Workstation customers to be a relatively small part of Redhat's customer base. And those that depend on LO support to be even smaller. I don't expect this to affect RH's bottom line in any negative way.
If that was the case, sqlite would have been unsuitable for your needs.
In other words, the complexity you describe was not caused by postgres. It was caused by your app design. Postgres was able to accommodate your app in a way that sqlite cannot.
Sqlite does have the "it's all contained in this single file" characteristic though. So if and when that's an advantage, there is that. Putting postgres in a container doesn't exactly provide the same characteristic.