I recently needed an OSS durable execution engine and chose River (I use Go) over DBOS because I wasn’t convinced I wouldn’t get rug pulled by a VC backed company. Both are technically commercial, but River seemed to be doing a lot more OSS friendly moves lately than DBOS, and AFAIK they are self bootstrapped.
I'm a little unclear on this. You say it's a replacement for Temporal, but the GitHub repo says it's a replacement for the temporal python client SDK?
Then in the description you say "This lets you run durable workflows, activities, signals, updates, retries, and recovery without needing any infrastructure except Postgres." but your diagram shows worker nodes outside of the Postgres server, so you do need infrastructure beyond the Postgres instance?
(ex temporal employee) believe it or not this is SIMPLER than temporal's actual workers. what you're seeing is a "DBOSify worker" embedded in each application server, which is not the same thing as temporal's conception of workers (which are separate from the app server). i havent spent much time with dbosify but i'd say this is closer to a "second client" than a full worker... just a terminology issue
I asked the DBOS folks about this before; the idea is that there is no "coordination node", only the workers and the DB. See DBOS folks previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45186494
Exactly, Postgres as an orchestrator instead of a Temporal server as an orchestrator. This page goes into more detail (for DBOS, but DBOSify is the same principle but using the Temporal API directly): https://docs.dbos.dev/explanations/comparing-temporal
Hey Peter. I know this is super unrelated, but I’ve used the contact form and sent an email in order to understand what the hell a conductor license costs for self-hosting. So far i’ve only gotten automated requests for feedback as a response.. That’s certainly not encouraged me to dig deeper into using dbos.
Hi x3ro - dbos marketing person here. Sorry about the contact form, which was broken for a few days last week following changes we made to the cookie management on the website.
Unfortunately, DSQL is still lacking many core Postgres features (most notably foreign keys) that DBOS and DBOSify depend on. DBOS works with most flavors of Postgres though, including regular Aurora/RDS, Cloud SQL, AlloyDB, Supabase, Neon, CockroachDB, and others.
We'd need DBOS in C# first! It's something we're considering for the future--if you're working in C#, happy to chat about it, reach out at peter.kraft@dbos.dev.
Then in the description you say "This lets you run durable workflows, activities, signals, updates, retries, and recovery without needing any infrastructure except Postgres." but your diagram shows worker nodes outside of the Postgres server, so you do need infrastructure beyond the Postgres instance?
Here's the documentation: https://github.com/dbos-inc/dbosify-py/blob/main/docs/ARCHIT...