I feel like the lede is a bit buried here, bordering on deceptive.
That or the architecture doc is wrong. Both plausible I guess, in this day and age.
This lack of detail may cause folks to form the incorrect impression that this is PostgreSQL, or a fork of it, or some module or plugin for it. Folks will be upset to learn that they were misinformed. Some will assign deception as the cause, whether that is true or not.
I think your interests would be best served by trying to make that distinction clear and prominently so. So for example "A PostgreSQL-compatible, fully serverless database", or similar.
I hope I have explained better.
This sounds really interesting, and I like the ease with which I could spin something up here and get embeddings for sure! But I would think the actual runtime perf of this would be “fine” for some text, but nowhere near Postgres level for all sorts of other stuff, right?
I am a huge fan of Postgres as a database, and of SQL, etc. but I don’t think I understand the benefit of using Postgres’ wire format here since it’s not Postgres behind the scenes. I guess that lets you use psql as the client?
I agree with the commentary above that it's much clearer to describe something as "PG SQL/wire format compatible".
People also skip over fast atomic moves and concurrent edits across deep hierarchies, which is exactly where a file system earns its keep instead of pretending SQL is a universal storage layer. If uptime and ops sanity matter, you usually bolt one on anyway.