> However, Fauna has five big architectural differences from Aurora and from other RDBMSes:<p>> Fauna is programmable, with a rich standard library of functions. It can run transactional business computation adjacent to the data and let the developer compose computational logic in a maintainable way.<p>I appreciate programming in PL/SQL isn't great or anything, but it exists and it works and I've used it to great effect in projects where the client pretty much only ever works with stored procedures, and I thereby don't really understand if they are actually different in fundamental ability here or if they merely have a better language (which I would even then question, as I have totally taken advantage of the ability to program PostgreSQL stored procedures in PL/Python).