8 ms·
pgrust seems to have good momentum. AGPL is an odd license for a non web project. Postgres is MIT-like, and that drove it's adoption. Have pgrust folks recons
by cognitiveinline 1mo ago
pgrust seems to have good momentum. AGPL is an odd license for a non web project. Postgres is MIT-like, and that drove it's adoption.
Have pgrust folks reconsidered this? Else, IMO we can have an independant rust port of pgrust, which can be MIT, which will garner more attention.
- ognarb 1mo ago2 commits in the repo both generated by claude. This is AI slop, I wonder where you see good momentum?
- esafak 1mo ago4K stargazers in a week.
- saberience 1mo agoStars have long ceased to have any meaning since they can be both automated and bought. Just look at Garry Tans ai slop prompts which got 60k stars in a few weeks.
- Whitespace 1mo agomain indeed has two commits, but it clearly states the location of the rest of the commits, so I wouldn't be critical of main itself. hey claude, do a breakthrough You can find the actual git history at the v0.2 github tag. Co-Authored-By: Fable <noreply@anthropic.com> Now we see https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/tree/v0.2 https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/tree/v0.2 has almost 6000 commits in it, with the very first one on 2026-07-02. That's a lot of token momentum! It's easy to claim AI slop nowadays, but you should still mistrust-but-verify.
- f311a 1mo agoWhat's the reason for it? Does not make a lot of sense to keep all the commits elsewhere
- malisper 1mo agoIt's a reference to the prompt that found a counterexample to the Dinitz-Garg-Goemans conjecture > "do a breakthrough and find a structured counterexample"
- refulgentis 1mo agoWhat do we mean by "easy to claim"? It is written by AI. The 6000 commits are by Claude.
- busterarm 1mo agoEverything around Rust is political, so the license choices are also about political statement.
- johnsonjo 1mo agoMost official Rust projects are dual MIT/Apache licensed by convention [1] (and most Rust libraries from third parties I've seen that are open source MIT follow the MIT/Apache dual license), so seems like this library shouldn't just be AGPL for a typical political choice of a Rustacean? [1]: https://rust-lang.org/policies/licenses/ https://rust-lang.org/policies/licenses/
- busterarm 1mo agoofficial projects are usually run by sensible people who want to do things and aren't leading with ideology. We're literally talking about an "X but in Rust" project already...
- appplication 1mo agoOh bummer. I was really excited about pgrust but AGPL is a dealbreaker. Not for me personally, but it will never see wide adoption because it’s a banned license in most corporate environments. Lack of path to wide adoption means it’s dead in the water. It’s weird because those who actually care about optimized pg gains are most likely large corporate customers. Why make a product targeting them and license it in such a way they’ll never use it? This also hard blocks upstreaming any beneficial features into core Postgres.
- karlmush 1mo agoAGPL seems like the right choice to me. I’m tired of companies like PlanetScale taking PostgreSQL, building a business on top of it, and then acting like PostgreSQL is theirs to control.
- samlambert 1mo agowe have not once claimed postgres is under our control. i don't think you understand how open source works but thats ok.
- guenthert 1mo agoIf it is indeed 300* faster, I'm sure more rational corporations will rethink their license policy or be left in the dust.
- xyzzy_plugh 1mo agoThey could simply spend a few months and a few million tokens and get their own port, no? I doubt even 30000x faster would prompt a policy change.
- superb_dev 1mo agoAre you suggesting the AI just rewrites the whole thing under a different license? There’s no way that’s not more dicey than the AGPL license.
- malisper 1mo agoAuthor here. At least for databases, AGPL (or stricter) has become standard. The issue is it's so easy for megacorps (Amazon, Google, etc) to take a permissively licensed product and monetize it at the expense of the original standard. For instance, Mongo, Cockroach, and Materialize have all gone source available. We picked AGPL because it's the best balance between open source and prevents Amazon from just repackaging it and selling it. If AGPL is an issue for anyone, we would be happy to dual-license under a commercial license.
- cognitiveinline 1mo agoSure, that's your prerogative, and kudos for not talking up open source. I'm not amazon size so can't use it, and AGPL is a no go for DB, don't want to be forced to open source my app because I use this! Will await a MIT based fork myself.
- jnwatson 1mo agoWhy would AGPL force you to open source your app? Unless you literally compile your app with pgrust by modifying the pgrust source code, you're safe. Clients aren't bound by the AGPL because they aren't derived works.
- xyzzy_plugh 1mo agoHere we go again. AGPL is untested in courts. There is no definitive definition of what could be considered within the blast radius such that it would require AGPL licensing. There's a reason AGPL is banned at Google and most sane companies. It's simply too dangerous. You can't simply say "clients aren't bound" because it depends. I'd rather see the BSL used here to be perfectly honest. At least it's simple.
- jnwatson 1mo agoWhile the AGPL is untested, what a derived work is is less so. It is entirely outside the bounds of the intentions of the authors of the AGPL for clients to be infected.
- wrs 1mo agoGood news, we now know up front what an independent port would cost, and it’s not much. So no reason AWS, Google, and friends couldn’t bang out their own port if they want, binary-compatible with this one. What we don’t know for sure is whether there is any copyright for LLM-generated code. The license might be irrelevant!