Postgres pioneer credits Oracle with helping his database take over the world
PostgreSQL creator Michael Stonebraker says Oracle inadvertently fuelled his database's rise to dominance by acquiring rival MySQL in 2010. He told The Register that fear of Oracle controlling MySQL's future pushed developers towards PostgreSQL, which remains free of any single vendor's control, driving what he calls "open source at its absolute best". The shift matters because PostgreSQL, launched 30 years ago this summer, has since become the backbone of database offerings from Microsoft, AWS and Google, while MySQL is now "vanishing as a competitor".
Stonebraker noted that PostgreSQL became developers' most popular database choice in 2023, according to Stack Overflow's survey, with hyperscalers and firms such as CockroachDB and YugabyteDB now offering PostgreSQL-compatible services built on its wire protocol. Oracle acquired MySQL as part of its Sun Microsystems purchase, and concerns about its commitment deepened after "widespread layoffs" hit MySQL's core development team last September. Now in his 80s, Stonebraker remains active, having co-founded DBOS three years ago, a company that has pivoted towards using "time travel" durable-execution technology to make AI agent workflows more resilient.
- Oracle's 2010 MySQL buyout pushed developers towards PostgreSQL, says its creator
- PostgreSQL became the top developer database choice by 2023
- Stonebraker now runs DBOS, applying durable execution to AI agents
New here? Start with this
PostgreSQL is a database system: software that stores and organises information so other programmes can use it. It began as a research project led by computer scientist Michael Stonebraker and is now available as open-source software, which means people can use and develop it without one company owning it.
MySQL is another widely used open-source database. Oracle, a major software company, acquired it in 2010 when it bought Sun Microsystems. Some developers worried that Oracle might shape MySQL’s future, and Stonebraker says this helped encourage them to choose PostgreSQL instead.
PostgreSQL’s growth matters because databases underpin many websites and online services. Major cloud providers, including Microsoft, AWS and Google, now offer services based on it, while other database companies make products that work with PostgreSQL.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The developer shift from MySQL to PostgreSQL after Oracle's acquisition reflects legitimate concerns about vendor control in critical open source infrastructure. When a proprietary corporation acquires a major community project, concerns about future prioritisation of commercial interests over community independence are justified, particularly given Oracle's subsequent lay-offs of MySQL's core team. The migration towards PostgreSQL demonstrates healthy market discipline: developers naturally gravitated towards a vendor-neutral alternative for database technology too crucial to be subject to any single company's strategic decisions, ensuring infrastructure remains governed by community consensus rather than corporate interests.
The case against
Oracle's acquisition was a legitimate corporate transaction, and the company's long history of sponsoring open source projects whilst respecting their independence suggests the acquisition need not have been fundamentally destabilising to MySQL's development. Developer concerns about vendor control, whilst understandable, may have emphasised theoretical risks about future corporate decisions rather than demonstrated evidence of Oracle actively undermining MySQL's development or user community. The market shift towards PostgreSQL likely reflects both PostgreSQL's genuine technical strengths and developers' natural competitive preferences, whilst MySQL's continued functionality and sustained user base suggest the acquisition has not materially damaged the project's practical viability or value.