Anand Naidu is a seasoned development expert with a deep mastery of both frontend and backend architectures. With years of experience navigating the complexities of various coding languages and database structures, he has become a go-to voice for understanding the intersection of open-source integrity and enterprise-grade performance. In this discussion, we explore the shifting landscape of database governance, the rising dominance of PostgreSQL, and the critical need for innovation in the era of artificial intelligence.
The following conversation delves into the growing concerns surrounding the stagnation of legacy databases and the potential for a foundation-led future. We examine the impact of declining contributor engagement, the technical debt created by fragmented forks, and what the future holds for one of the world’s most recognizable database projects.
Modern data ecosystems require native AI support, yet recent updates to legacy databases often feel sparse or opaque. How does this development lag impact your current architectural decisions, and what specific technical hurdles do you face when trying to implement AI workloads on stagnant platforms?
When the core database project fails to move at the speed of the industry, it forces architects into a difficult corner where we have to build workarounds instead of solutions. In my recent projects, the lack of native AI features—which are now considered table stakes—means we are often managing external vector stores or complex middleware just to handle what should be standard data operations. This development lag is palpable; when updates are “private” and sparse, we lose the predictability needed for long-term planning, leading many to feel that the situation has reached a critical level. The biggest hurdle is the absence of features that help consolidate and serve data for AI, which are already standard in other enterprise versions, leaving us to bridge the gap with custom, high-maintenance code.
Establishing a neutral, foundation-led governance model is often proposed to restore roadmap transparency. How would a multi-vendor steering committee specifically improve the release pipeline, and what steps are necessary to balance corporate commercial interests with the needs of the broader open-source community?
A multi-vendor steering committee would dismantle the “walled garden” approach by bringing Oracle, fork providers, cloud vendors, and the community together to share the burden of development. By overseeing roadmap planning and release governance collectively, we could move away from opaque, private updates and toward a transparent schedule that benefits everyone. To balance this, Oracle could retain its commercial trademarks and offerings while the foundation manages the core open-source engine, ensuring that commercial interests don’t throttle the innovation needed by the 248 signatories and the wider ecosystem. It is about creating a symbiotic relationship where the corporate owner still profits, but the community gains the confidence that the technical direction won’t stall due to a single company’s internal priorities.
Active contributor counts and annual commit volumes are vital indicators of a project’s health. When these metrics see significant long-term declines, what internal warning signs should teams look for, and how can a project successfully rebuild its developer ecosystem to encourage fresh contributions?
The most alarming warning sign is a steady erosion of the human element; for instance, seeing the pool of active contributors drop from 135 in 2017 to just 75 by the third quarter of 2025 is a clear red flag. When you combine that with annual commits plummeting from 22,360 in 2010 to just 4,730 in 2024, you are looking at a project that is losing its pulse. To rebuild, a project must restore trust through an autonomous, community-led governance model, similar to how PostgreSQL operates, which encourages developers to invest their time without fear of their work being sidelined. We also need to address the loss of key community advocates, like the recent departures to the MariaDB Foundation, by fostering an environment where contributors feel their voices actually shape the roadmap.
PostgreSQL is currently seeing a surge in enterprise adoption over historically dominant relational databases. What specific technical advantages make it more attractive for modern workloads, and what are the practical migration risks that organizations must navigate when switching their core data layer?
PostgreSQL has become the darling of the industry because its governance model fosters rapid innovation, making it a natural fit for the AI stack where it acts as a critical system dependency. Its extensibility allows it to handle diverse workloads that legacy systems struggle with, which is why it now leads in popularity according to the 2025 Stack Overflow survey. However, the migration is not without its “white-knuckle” moments; the primary risk involves navigating the unique extensions found in various forks that create lock-ins. Moving a core data layer requires a meticulous audit of these individual extensions to ensure that logic isn’t lost when transitioning to a more standard, community-driven environment.
Reliance on database forks can lead to vendor lock-in and compatibility barriers between upstream versions. In what ways does this fragmentation complicate long-term maintenance for DevOps teams, and what strategies can be used to ensure portability across different cloud and fork providers?
Fragmentation is a nightmare for DevOps because it creates a “version hell” where forks are no longer compatible with each other or the original upstream core. This lack of compatibility builds major barriers for adoption and future migrations, essentially trapping a team within a specific provider’s ecosystem. To ensure portability, we have to prioritize “upstream-first” contributions, pushing for a model where innovations at the fork level eventually make it back to the main project. Without a centralized foundation to coordinate these efforts, teams are forced to spend more time managing compatibility patches than they do on actual product development, which is why a unified technical steering committee is so vital.
What is your forecast for MySQL?
I believe MySQL is at a definitive crossroads where its survival depends on a radical shift toward transparency and community inclusion. If the current trajectory continues, we will likely see a further exodus of talent and users toward PostgreSQL, as the data layer is increasingly seen as an essential AI dependency that cannot afford to be stagnant. However, if Oracle embraces the foundation model, we could see a powerful resurgence; by opening up the roadmap and stabilizing the contributor base, MySQL can leverage its massive installed base to remain a dominant force. My forecast is that the pressure from major players like Pinterest, DigitalOcean, and Vultr will eventually force a governance evolution, as the cost of losing the ecosystem will eventually outweigh the benefits of total corporate control.
