> hacking the main Postgres db and adding load to the primary instance
nobody said this had to be on the primary database server, and how is this hacking?
Is every app server going to have its own local "sqlite cache"? Or is it going to use one of the sqlite server/replication things? So why not just use PG?
That's a bit of a strawman argument. Per the post, you can't leverage this on a read replica, it has to be run on primary. So you're going to stand up and manage a full new Postgres instance for this?
I'm sure there are many cases when that makes sense, but there are many cases when that's also overkill. An in-memory cache inside your server will give you better performance, and a lot of less infrastructure maintenance complexity.
nobody said this had to be on the primary database server, and how is this hacking?
Is every app server going to have its own local "sqlite cache"? Or is it going to use one of the sqlite server/replication things? So why not just use PG?