The biggest issue with postgREST for me is that it doesn't support transactions well. You can't two 2 insert and keep a consistent state if one fails. That alone is a deal breaker.
I think this sentiment stems from users of postgrest-js[1], which is a JS library that gives an ORM feel to PostgREST requests. Under that abstraction, users don't realize they're using a REST API, instead of a direct postgres connection.
So in this case users are really asking for "client-side transactions"[2], which are not supported in PostgREST.
You posted a lot of comments in response to complaints or critiques of postgrest (almost every one at the time of my reading).
Most of them are very terse, rude/dismissive, and in my view fall on the wrong side of hackernews etiquette. eg, "Sure you can. Just X" is not a educational or persuasive construction and neither are several other comments you've made on this submission.
If nothing else, I'd encourage you to respond to the best version (steelman) of these critiques, which will improve the quality of discussion and be more persuasive.
I encourage you to read the HN guidelines and then read the comments that I've replied to, because many of them could with considerable justification be regarded as unkind, snarky, and smug.
I would also encourage you not to make and take things personally, and instead stick to the substance. Every one of my comments has been about the technological approach under consideration. If they're terse, it's because I don't want to waste people's time. If they're "not educational or persuasive" to you then you're free to disregard them, or say why exactly they fail. Plenty of the comments here, in my view, are "not educational or persuasive", so I said so and gave my reasons for having that view. I would encourage you to do the same.
