Despite the distinct name, this project aims to upstream all changes to PostgreSQL (see Alexander's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=30464060&goto=item%3Fi...)

So rather than a "new database", it's probably better to think of it as an iteration of PostgreSQL

only the additional “hooks” for Table Access Methods need to get up streamed into the core Postgres. OrioleDB is a separate storage engine and not designed to replace the current engine, and be used as an adjunct storage option

My only issue is things calling themselves a database when they are either a wrapper layer around an actual DB (most of the new "databases" I see posted) or as in this case a storage engine.

Not trying to take away from the great work done here but the product name and link title would be more clear if it was referred to as a storage engine rather than a DB.

important distinction - this uses the Postgres Table Access Method to add an additional storage engine to the Postgres platform.. this is NOT a replacement for the current storage engine and can co-exist and be used on a per-table basis

Good point. Especially since the final destination is to merge into Postgres mainline in the future, it would make more sense to call this Oriole Storage Engine...

Exist a sore need for better DBs and is due the action is there.

My only gripe is that most are focused in the MOST niches of the scenarios of the MOST exotics of the deployments (the kind that worry about stuff like multi-master across continents).

The RDBMS need more fundamental improvements at the core (like for example, start supporting algebraic types!).

The IT world is still growing, people need scale and existing solutions might not scale like people want.