Hello, *I don't agree with this proposal.* Because keeping all three databases promotes Fineract's goal of being a versatile, inclusive platform. This proposal looks like a shortcut for us as developers.
Removing MySQL and MariaDB would likely outweigh the benefits of simplification, given the financial sector's emphasis on stability, choice, and minimal disruption. Apache Fineract have loyal users that have been migrating since the first versions of "Mifos" before it became an Apache project which I think the original objective of that donation was to have a "foster a larger, more collaborative developer community, ensure long-term sustainability, and accelerate the commoditization of core banking infrastructure for financial inclusion. By moving to Apache, the platform gained neutral governance and increased industry adoption." taken from https://groups.google.com/g/mifosdeveloper/c/-_9a-4tldSo Fineract's architecture emphasizes database-agnostic design where possible, using tools like Liquibase (another pain point now) for schema migrations and standard SQL features that work across these databases. Overall, Apache Fineract's multi-database approach reflects Apache projects' emphasis on inclusivity, allowing Fineract to serve a global user base without forcing migrations or custom forks. If we go in that way (dropping the support of MySQL and MariaDB ) - We are promoting the Forks instead of sending upstream code - Disruption to existing deployments - Complicating the user adoption and community backlash - Technical and compatibility Issues (there are connectors or application developed by financial institution connected to the Apache Fineract DBs) - Add security implications - Financial regulations often require audited, stable setups. Abrupt changes could erode trust, especially if users face security threats during migrations (e.g., exposed credentials or incomplete data transfers). Limiting Apache Fineract to PostgreSQL might hinder integrations with MySQL/MarioDB-centric tools in fintech stacks, increasing costs for custom workarounds, some small financial institutions will be impacted not only techically but also economically. Just some thoughts why we should keep the support of the two Databases Mysql/MariaDB. Regards El mar, 10 mar 2026 a las 10:58, Edward Kang (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Adam, > > Just chiming in with my experience with this issue as well. We saw in > FINERACT-274 that there are issues with MariaDB and MySQL behavior on > transaction DDL commits. Just another reason to swap over to Postgres in my > opinion. > > Best, > Edward > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 11:38 AM Adam Monsen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> ...for reasons mentioned by others including simpler maintenance and the >> ability to leverage useful postgresql-specific features. We're tasked with >> making difficult decisions to be able to maintain our code, including >> (IMHO) trimming fat like multiple database support. >> >> >> Bharath and Awasum also brought up good points about existing >> installations depending on other databases. >> >> Users (e.g. banks / vendors / other paid support orgs) should chime >> *here, now* with their real-world needs and data to help inform our >> decision. Assuming we decide to proceed, users should also step up and >> volunteer to write or sponsor mariadb/mysql to postgresql migration guides, >> scripts, case studies, etc. >> > > > -- > Edward E. Kang > [email protected] > 972-768-6940 >
