PostgreSQL Project Due Diligence
Run due diligence on PostgreSQL Project: check compliance and get alerts when suppliers change.
United States · www.postgresql.org · 8 vendors
PostgreSQL is a powerful, open-source object-relational database system that uses and extends the SQL language. It originated as the POSTGRES project at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1986. The software is developed and maintained by the PostgreSQL Global Development Group, an unincorporated association of volunteers and companies, and is known for its reliability, robust features, and extensibility.
Resilience scores
- Digital Sovereignty: 50
- Digital Resilience: 9
- Financial Resilience: 8
Technology vendors
- conova communications GmbH — Technology — Austria
- Redpill Linpro — Sweden
- Varnish Software AB — Technology — Sweden
- and 5 more
Services catalogue
3 services in catalogue across 2 categories; runs on 8 sub-vendors.
- data stores
- Database
- PostgreSQL
Insights
Last updated 2026-08-14 · revision 7
8 direct vendors, 112 subvendors
Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)
- Sweden: 2
- Japan: 1
- United States: 4
Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)
- Belgium: 1
- Sweden: 4
- Germany: 6
Compliance
5 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.
US Export Administration Regulations — No public evidence
Evidence: https://www.postgresql.org/about/, https://www.postgresql.org/download/
CPRA — No public evidence
Evidence: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/privacy/, https://www.postgresql.org/about/donate/
Open Source License Compliance — Evidence found
Evidence: https://www.postgresql.org/about/licence/, https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/
Financials
Three-year financials
- null:
Financial Resilience Score: 8/10
PostgreSQL is not a commercial entity but an open-source database software project stewarded by the PostgreSQL Global Development Group (PGDG). Traditional financial resilience metrics do not apply as the project has no revenue, EBIT, equity, or employees. However, its resilience as a project is extraordinarily high due to its 35+ year track record dating to the POSTGRES project at UC Berkeley (1986), its distributed governance model, and its permissive PostgreSQL License which prevents forced re-licensing that has destabilized other OSS projects like MySQL, MongoDB, Elastic, Redis, and HashiCorp. The project benefits from massive commercial ecosystem underwriting, with major contributors paid by employers including EDB, Crunchy Data, Microsoft, AWS, Google, Fujitsu, NTT, VMware/Broadcom, Cybertec, Percona, Aiven, Supabase, Neon, and Timescale. This diversified corporate sponsorship makes contributor funding highly resilient and eliminates single-point-of-failure risk. Because PostgreSQL is not owned by any company, it cannot go bankrupt, be acquired, or have its license changed by a private-equity buyer. Key risks include the absence of a central treasury to fund large strategic initiatives, marketing, or legal defense at scale; contributor concentration risk where a handful of committers do a disproportionate share of core work; trademark and infrastructure dependency on a few non-profits with modest budgets (low six-figure euro/USD range); and competitive pressure from cloud vendors (AWS Aurora, Google AlloyDB, Azure Cosmos DB for PostgreSQL) that monetize PostgreSQL heavily but contribute back variably.
Key strengths: 35+ year track record with continuous development since 1986, Distributed governance model with no single point of failure, Permissive PostgreSQL License preventing forced re-licensing, Diversified corporate sponsorship from EDB, AWS, Microsoft, Google, Fujitsu, NTT, and many others, Named DBMS of the Year by DB-Engines three times (2017, 2018, 2023), Most-used database among professional developers per Stack Overflow 2023 and 2024 surveys, Multiple non-profit associations supporting infrastructure (PGDG, PGEU, PgUS, JPUG)
Risk factors: No central treasury for large strategic initiatives, marketing, or legal defense, Contributor concentration risk among key committers, Trademark and infrastructure dependency on non-profits with modest budgets, Competitive pressure from cloud vendors monetizing without proportional contribution, No commercial support obligations - users must buy support from third parties
Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.