You’re being unnecessarily arrogant and antagonistic up and down this thread
You’re not smarter than everyone else here, you don’t have better or more perfect knowledge, and you almost certainly wouldn’t have built a better or more reliable system.
By the way, S3 is insanely reliable and in fact more reliable than a replicated RDS setup. So switching from S3 to RDS would almost certainly reduce the basic reliability of the data layer, however many conveniences it might bring.
PostgreSQL and RDS are quite a bit more than just a log-structured data store, and are not prima facie the correct solution for this problem domain, regardless of how much arrogant ignorance you bring to bear on the debate.
Fortunately it doesn't look from your recent comments that you've been in the habit of posting this way, so it should be easy to fix.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
In retrospect, I’d delete and/or edit the comments if I could.
But more than that: servers should be stateless! A server going down should never take down your business.
If you use Postgres, and stateless servers, then if a server goes down it's no problem, it gets rebooted and there may be other servers and a load balancer to pick up the load. If Postgres goes down, you have a replica, or it gets rebooted, and Postgres always recovers from crashes (in my experience), and if it doesn't you have PITR.
AWS has everything under the sun to prevent this kind of thing happening. This is a 1990's outage. This didn't have to happen.