Experiences with managed PostgreSQL Services
December 04, 2025

Experiences with managed PostgreSQL Services

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with PostgreSQL

Our organization hosts a DMS system that needs a database to save configurations/passwords/etc. As we offer a cloud solution, it was clear we need a managed DB and PostgresSQL fitted that use case. Also because, instead of something self hosted, it offers a reliable managed backup, autoscaling and much more.

And of course, the Open Source aspects is a strong point, because it allows you to reduce the migration sorrows, if we would be force to switch to a different Hyper Scaler or want to use multi cloud.

Pros

  • Store data
  • Perform reasonable even with big data amounts
  • Automatically scale e.g. if switched on you can increase the disk if needed
  • Things as max connections are not restricted to be configured

Cons

  • Point in time recovery (backup) takes a long time (Sort of Hyperscaler related)
  • Not so easy to install extensions among other thins if no super user available (Hyperscaler dependant)
  • Updating from one Postgres version to another not straight forward
  • Other than a self-hosted PostgreSQL, the managed service reduces the time to be spend with manage a DB to nearly zero
  • Same that a backup service is already in place and you even can use point in time recovery, gives you a lot of flexibility
  • Nothing is for free, so if the offered features are not needed (e.g. test/dev systems) this might be too expensive
  • As already said, the flexibility of a open source allows you to use it across hyper scalers
Colleagues that worked before with other DBs (Orcale, MsSql...) complain about the confusing structure and struggle do adopt, so it might be not the best solution, when you need to onboard people who worked with different DBs before. Same might be true, if you want to migrate from one of the mentioned DBs to Postgres. Although a big plus for PostgreSQL there is "less" of a vendor lock, because it is available at most of the Hyperscaler. Said that, of course they might make sure, that "their" DB is more efficient than PostgresSQL.
My expirence with other solutions is very limited, but what I saw/heard is, that on Azure the managed MS SQL Server is said to be more flexible and you can use it in a serverless-ish fashion. But on the other hand, PostgresSQL is still strong regarding its efficiency. And in my opinion the higher learning curve to get used to its "unusale" structure is worth it.

Do you think PostgreSQL delivers good value for the price?

Yes

Are you happy with PostgreSQL's feature set?

Yes

Did PostgreSQL live up to sales and marketing promises?

I wasn't involved with the selection/purchase process

Did implementation of PostgreSQL go as expected?

Yes

Would you buy PostgreSQL again?

Yes

I can only comment from the perspective of a managed PostgreSQL user. For cloud services, it is important to be cost-efficient and only pay for resources which are used. Here this solution has it strenghts, for example IBM changed its model in the past. If your application is not DB RAM/vCPU hungry the old shared plan was deprecated, so now you cannot have less than 0.5 vCPUs and 4 GB of RAM from the get-go. And even if you are not need for high availavility, two members is the minium (doubles your cost). In addition, if you work without outscaling (for whatever reason, e.g. loadtesting and the time it would take to scale is to slow) the solution might be too expensive. But I guess, when you self host, you can circumvent that.

Comments

More Reviews of PostgreSQL

  1. Home
  2. Open-Source Database Software
  3. PostgreSQL Reviews
  4. User Review of PostgreSQL