Cloud-native Postgres vs self-hosted components: trade-offs in cost, control, and security

Atlassian just completed a 4M PostgreSQL Database Migration to AWS Aurora PostgreSQL ^[1]. The move spotlights cloud-native Postgres as a viable path for large workloads, nudging teams to compare managed services with self-hosted options like GroupMQ.

Cloud-native route — A hosted Postgres can simplify ops and scale with demand, as Atlassian’s migration suggests. The move highlights the appeal of cloud-native Postgres for big deployments, potentially reducing self-managed toil ^[1].

Self-hosted path — When teams want granular control, GroupMQ shows how a Redis-backed queue can offer grouping and per-group sequential processing, with timestamp-based ordering and parallel group execution ^[2]. It’s positioned against BullMQ while staying self-hosted ^[2].

Security angle — Security patch cadence matters. Redis issued CVE-2025-49844, illustrating the ongoing need for timely fixes in Redis components ^[3]. That reality factors into decisions about whether to rely on managed services or maintain direct control over the stack.

Practical signals: • Cloud-native fits large, hands-off deployments (as Atlassian demonstrates with AWS Aurora PostgreSQL) ^[1]. • Self-hosted shines when you need tailored semantics like grouping and ordered processing (e.g., GroupMQ vs BullMQ) ^[2]. • Security patch timing and risk appetite should drive your choice (Redis CVE details matter) ^[3].

Closing thought: the takeaway is clear—weigh scale and control against security cadence, then pick the path best aligned with your team's realities.

References: ^[1] POST ID: 1 ^[2] POST ID: 2 ^[3] POST ID: 3

References