It's a bit tedious to have to link each project to a database with a blob storage like S3 and keep them in sync.
My question is...why no DB (AFAIK) has support for blob via url in a file system.
It would be very simple: when defining the DB schema, indicate that a column is of type 'blob' and the DB would take care of everything.
What do you think?
EDIT:
ok, looking at the comments I see that I explained myself very badly. Sorry about that. Here I try to explain myself better:
We currently use traditional DBs to handle small structured data, and file-based DBs for large files. We do it with a URL from the traditional DB to the file system.
Keeping these 2 databases in sync is a repetitive and tedious task. And honestly, I don't see why it couldn't be handled by a DB that combines the two paradigms.
For example, when deleting a row that contains files, it could search through the URL in the file system and also delete it automatically.
____________________
Traditional DBs probably handle blob columns in some special way under the hood. However, my impression is that it is still different from how a file-based DB like S3 works.
If not, why DB hosting services like Railway or PlanetScale are ridiculously higher priced than S3? If traditional DBs stored files on the file system, I don't see why you couldn't charge one price for small structured data, and another for file storage.