So it looks like there are at least 2 distinct versions of Postgres-compatible
Amazon Aurora.
The regular Aurora would have all the regular Postgres features I suppose.
While the one you linked to is a specialized Distributed or DSQL variant and I
see it is actually missing a huge amount of standard features, including foreign
keys, sequences, triggers, exclusion constraints, and mixing DDL and DML in a
common transaction.
Darren Duncan
On 2025-07-29 2:48 a.m., Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 10:24, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> I had understood that Aurora mainly differed with its lower level internals
> implementation, but that it should look the same from a user perspective and
> thus be drop-in compatible with regular Postgres in practice, such that any
> database schemas or clients that work in regular should work with it unmodified.
>
> What are the main differences you see in Aurora that are surfaced to users such
> that they would have any kinds of impact on pgAdmin compatibility?
>
>
> Things related to the underlying storage engine like system columns on tables,
> for example xmin/xmax/ctid which might be different, but there are also a bunch
> of unsupported features (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aurora-dsql/latest/
> userguide/working-with-postgresql-compatibility-unsupported-features.html), none of which pgAdmin
> knows are unsupported or in what way - e.g. are there system catalogues that are
> missing, will DDL be accepted but do nothing or will it throw errors, will some
> of the catalogues be missing individual columns that may not be needed because
> certain features are unsupported? The list is likely longer than that, but you
> get the gist.
>
> --
> Dave Page
> pgAdmin: https://www.pgadmin.org <https://www.pgadmin.org>
> PostgreSQL: https://www.postgresql.org <https://www.postgresql.org>
> pgEdge: https://www.pgedge.com <https://www.pgedge.com>
>
