The storage cutover must stop replication instability without committing the wrong clusters to a one-way path.
Fast migration protects transaction continuity; narrower verification protects tenants whose cutover tolerance is uncertain.
Who you’d be doing this for
“Our order workers paused twice today, and finance is asking whether any writes disappeared.”
Kwaku Yeboah · Backend Developer
Operates a production application on an affected distributed PostgreSQL cluster.
What is at stake
Twenty-three Multigres clusters exceed 90 seconds of replication lag, and four have entered recovery. You must weigh rapid cutovers against verified tenant readiness when each storage move is costly to undo.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- rapid containment vs verified cutovers
- replication recovery vs customer interruption
- fleet consistency vs workload-specific risk
- automated summaries vs human-reviewed evidence
Why Supabase
Supabase manages millions of PostgreSQL databases, so a storage decision must protect transactional data across a large fleet.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 19 more at Supabase, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.