Microsoft and AWS join forces as DocumentDB shakes the database world with open source power under Linux Foundation control

[ad_1]

DocumentDB started as a Postgres add-on before evolving into a standalone project
The Linux Foundation’s adoption signals a new era for open document databases
MongoDB’s restrictive licensing decisions created openings for DocumentDB’s permissive approach

For years, open source databases have been described as either traditional relational systems or newer NoSQL alternatives.

The emergence of DocumentDB, first introduced by Microsoft and now adopted under the Linux Foundation, is blurring that divide.

By combining PostgreSQL with document-oriented storage through extensions, DocumentDB positions itself as both familiar to developers and disruptive to existing NoSQL players.

Table of Contents

From PostgreSQL extensions to a full project

Its adoption under the permissive MIT license signals a push for wider community participation.

“It’s great that Microsoft, AWS, and others are joining forces to work on DocumentDB, an open source implementation of a MongoDB-compatible API on top of PostgreSQL,” said Bruce Momjian, founding member of the PostgreSQL core development team.

“We built DocumentDB with a simple goal: give developers an open document database with the flexibility of NoSQL and the power, reliability, openness, and ecosystem of Postgres,” said Kirill Gavrylyuk, vice president at Microsoft.

DocumentDB began in 2024 as a pair of PostgreSQL add-ons for handling BSON data models and document queries.

Within a year, the project expanded into a standalone database that still depends heavily on PostgreSQL’s reliability and ecosystem.

This dual identity, part relational engine and part document store, makes DocumentDB attractive for developers seeking a common interface.

Yet skeptics point out that layering document features onto PostgreSQL does not erase the structural limitations of relational systems.

The move to bring DocumentDB into the Linux Foundation has attracted support from Amazon Web Services, Google, and others.

Their endorsement signals a rare moment of alignment among major cloud vendors, particularly given the licensing disputes that fractured the database world in recent years.

“AWS is excited to contribute to the open source DocumentDB project, now stewarded by the Linux Foundation,” said Adam Abrevaya, director, Amazon DocumentDB.

“It is great to see the DocumentDB project joining the Linux Foundation, which assures customers and the community have an openly governed, open source option available to them,” said Sailesh Krishnamurthy, vice president of engineering, Google Cloud.

Still, critics recall that vendor neutrality has often been more symbolic than practical.

A project backed by hyperscalers can easily become shaped by their priorities, leaving smaller contributors to wonder how much influence community governance will genuinely hold.

The adoption of DocumentDB can also be seen as a response to MongoDB’s decision to embrace restrictive licensing models.

By offering a permissive alternative, the Linux Foundation hopes to push toward a more interoperable standard for document databases.

Industry veterans argue that such a standard is long overdue, but the timing is contentious.

However, MongoDB continues to dominate the market, and its defenders insist that bolting document capabilities onto PostgreSQL is no substitute for a native design.

“DocumentDB fills a critical gap in the document database ecosystem, attracting contributors, users, and champions. It provides an open standard for document-based applications,” said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation.

For developers working on Linux distros or configuring laptops for programming, DocumentDB may appear as another tool promising simplicity and openness.

Enterprises considering mobile workstations or SaaS integrations may also see appeal in a standardized, Postgres-based NoSQL option.

Yet the reality is less straightforward because success depends on technical merit and the community’s resistance to tilting toward the largest vendors.

[ad_2]