678843a · 1,489 commits · 1,511 files
Issued 2026-11-03
AGPL-3.0 since 2025-01-04: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published.
104 checks ran across 6 assessable dimensions. None found a significant problem; 3 raised something worth a question. 9 findings, each with evidence. One dimension cannot be assessed without an acquirer.
- 05.60 AGPL-3.0 since 2025-01-04: open source; offering it over a network counts as distributing it, so a hosted product's changes must be published
- 05.60 Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2025-01-04) LICENSE
- 05.61 6 files are named as enterprise-edition code pgdog/src/backend/pool/ee/mod.rs
- 2 findings from checks Borehole's calibration found wrong more often than right are no longer published.
| Dimension | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong | |
| 02 | Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | strong | |
| 03 | Organization & Key-Person Risk | adequate | |
| 04 | Product & Engineering Maturity | strong | |
| 05 | Security & Reliability Posture | adequate | |
| 06 | Observability & Operations | adequate | |
| 07 | Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
- 3% of non-merge commits carry any trailer at all
- low trailer coverage: the convention may not be in consistent use
- no widespread author/committer date divergence
- deep scan blamed 1,498 of 1,498 counted files
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · strong · ratings ↑pgdog/src/backend/server.rs is 4,574 lines, 62× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 73 lines. 19 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,574. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
A note that does not affect this rating: measured against its own codebase's median, it is below the 85th percentile of 382 surveyed projects' largest files, where this check begins to count.
| line-count | pgdog/src/backend/server.rs:1 — 4,574 lines (62× median) |
| line-count | pgdog/src/frontend/router/parser/statement.rs:1 — 2,954 lines (40× median) |
| line-count | pgdog/src/backend/replication/logical/subscriber/tests.rs:1 — 2,774 lines (38× median) |
| line-count | pgdog-config/src/general.rs:1 — 2,207 lines (30× median) |
| line-count | pgdog/src/api/task.rs:1 — 1,945 lines (26× median) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 16 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · adequate · ratings ↑Bus factor 1: recent work is concentrated in one contributor
adequateIn the last 24 months, one contributor authored more than half of 1,485 non-merge commits among 81 authors; across all history, more than half of 1,485. This is the single most expensive thing to discover after closing, and the repository cannot tell you whether that person is part of the transaction.
| git shortlog -sn | last 24 months: top author more than half of 1,485 commits; bus factor 1; 81 authors |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · strong · ratings ↑No finding. 19 checks ran and none fired; the rejection log below says why each did not.
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · adequate · ratings ↑1 Dockerfile runs the application as root
adequateNo USER instruction switches away from root, so the process runs with full privileges inside the container. It is a one-line fix and an ordinary expectation, which is why its absence is worth asking about: it usually says more about whether anyone has reviewed the deployment than about this container specifically.
| no-USER-instruction | Dockerfile — runs as root |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Relicensed: MIT → AGPL-3.0 (2025-01-04)
adequateThe root licence changed 1 time(s). The latest terms restrict what users, hosts or a buyer may do in ways the earlier ones did not. Code taken under the old terms stays under them, so both matter in diligence.
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
6 files are named as enterprise-edition code
adequateFiles named `.ee.` are, by the common open-core convention, the paid edition's code, usually under a licence that is not open source even where the rest is. What the buyer may do with each part differs.
| pgdog/src/backend/pool/ee/mod.rs | pgdog/src/backend/pool/ee/mod.rs — enterprise-edition file |
| pgdog/src/frontend/ee/mod.rs | pgdog/src/frontend/ee/mod.rs — enterprise-edition file |
| pgdog/src/frontend/router/parser/ee/mod.rs | pgdog/src/frontend/router/parser/ee/mod.rs — enterprise-edition file |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
The build runs third-party code it does not pin
adequate11 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| .github/workflows/cache-warm.yml | .github/workflows/cache-warm.yml:63 — action pinned by tag |
| .github/workflows/ci-image.yml | .github/workflows/ci-image.yml:56 — action pinned by tag |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
28 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 9 high or critical
adequate28 of 690 locked dependencies match 49 published advisories in OSV, 9 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.
A note that does not affect this rating: in Borehole's calibration, this check's notes were usually true but overstated.
| pgdog/Cargo.lock | pgdog/Cargo.lock — aws-lc-sys 0.24.1: GHSA-65p9-r9h6-22vj (high), fixed in 0.38.0 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — aws-smithy-json 0.62.6: GHSA-8ffr-xgwf-xj56 (high), fixed in 0.62.7 |
| Cargo.lock | Cargo.lock — hickory-proto 0.25.2: GHSA-3v94-mw7p-v465 (high) |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Observability & Operations
06 · adequate · ratings ↑One request cannot be followed through the logs
adequateNothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.
| request ids | no request id, correlation id or tracing found |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
No error reporter is wired in
adequateNothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.
A note that does not affect this rating: notes like it are common in well-run projects.
| error reporting | no error reporter initialised |
Respond to this finding
Your response is published beside the finding, not instead of it. A finding you can argue with is the point — and a wrong one is calibration data we want.
An owner's response is removed only when it is unlawful, impersonates someone, publishes personal data or a credential, or is not about the finding. Disagreeing with the report is never a reason. To report a response, or to reach us about one, write to takedown@borehole.dev.
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · not assessable · ratings ↑Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository. What a person adds here.
Check it on the running system
5 checks against the running system follow from the findings above: what a buyer's engineer will try, how to run it first, and what to have ready. A paid survey of this repository includes them.
A paid survey of a public repository is also reviewed: a language model reads each finding against the code and withdraws only findings it judges the code contradicts, each listed with its reason. The review is a language model's reading of the findings against the code, and it can be wrong. It never adds a finding, never raises a band, and never removes a finding from a proven check or an advisory that affects the surveyed version.
What a person adds
The survey reads what the repository can show. The code cannot settle these questions, and on them this report states nothing. Each says where its answer lives: your own engineer, the company, or an assessor you choose can settle it. Questions marked measured open with something this repository shows.
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
01 · full coverage- measured No architecture or design document is in the tree, across 707 product files. Where does the design live, and who holds it?
- measured The repository pulls code in through git submodules (.gitmodules). A buyer receives pointers, not that code. Can every submodule be fetched without the team's credentials, and who owns each one?
- Is the architecture right for the next three years of the product?
- Were the home-grown components reasonable choices when they were made, and are they now?
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
02 · high coverage- Is review real or a rubber stamp? Comment depth and time to approve need the pull request history.
- Is delivery planned and measured, or heroic?
- How are incidents run, reviewed and learned from?
Organization & Key-Person Risk
03 · partial coverage- measured One contributor authored more than half of the commits in this history. Is that person part of the transaction, and for how long after it?
- Who mentors whom, and would that survive a departure?
- Can the team grow, and who stands behind the top three contributors?
- Is the seniority mix sound, and will pay survive your salary bands?
- Is the pace sustainable? Commit times cannot say: git keeps no reliable local time.
- Does the team want to stay after close?
- How are decisions made and disagreements resolved?
Product & Engineering Maturity
04 · minimal coverage- Can this team deliver the stated roadmap on the stated timeline?
- Does leadership know about the debt, and is time budgeted to repay it?
- Is the engineering shape consistent with the commercial story?
Security & Reliability Posture
05 · partial coverage- measured No threat model is in the tree of what looks like a running service. Does one exist elsewhere, and who owns it?
- What has actually broken, how often, and how badly?
- What did external testing find, and was it fixed?
- What is the SOC 2, ISO 27001 or GDPR status, and where is the evidence?
Observability & Operations
06 · partial coverage- measured Nothing in the tree backs up or restores data. How is data backed up, and has a restore ever been rehearsed?
- measured No alert rule is defined in the repository. Where are alerts defined, who receives them, and when did one last fire?
- Are the dashboards opened, the alerts acknowledged and the pages answered?
- Are the service-level objectives actually met?
- Who carries the pager, and how often does it go off?
- What does it cost to run, and how much headroom is there?
Fit with the Acquirer
07 · none coverageNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
- This is primarily a Rust codebase. Does your engineering organisation already run Rust in production, or would this be the first?
- The bulk of this system sits in pgdog/, pgdog-config/, pgdog-plugin/. Which of your existing systems would each of those have to absorb or replace?
- The repository carries deployment configuration (Dockerfile and 4 more). Does that match your deployment and on-call model, or does it need rehosting first?
- What is your tolerance for the findings above remaining unaddressed for the first two quarters after close, given everything else that will compete for this team's time?
- Which of these systems duplicate yours, and which get retired?
- What will integration cost, and in what order?
- Where does the team land in your organisation, and who reports to whom?
- Are there earn-outs, retention packages or contractor IP to assign?
- Do customer contracts limit hosting, regions or vendors?
A human assessment is Borehole's own paid service, €12,000+ (total price is determined per engagement; travel billed at cost). It is not independent of this report: the same business produced both. It is a separate contract, with its own scope, terms and reliance.
Embed the badge
Tied to this commit and this date, and it fades after 90 days — an honest badge is one that expires. A repository with significant findings gets a neutral "read" badge rather than a red one: the library is where the range is visible, not someone else's README.
[](/r/pgdogdev/pgdog/678843a)If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
Rejection log — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Appendix: rejection log — 95 signals that ran and did not fire
Published on purpose. A signal that looked and decided not to fire has told you something, and this is the calibration data behind every threshold above.
Looked, and found nothing — 60
| Signal | What it found |
|---|---|
| 04.hotspot_concentration | change is spread across the codebase rather than pooling in a few filesfiles 2,113 · top5 share 0.06 |
| 04.debt_markers | debt markers are sparsemarkers 145 · per kloc 0.64 · lines read 225,876 |
| 04.churn_trend | rework is not rising against new worklate delete per insert 0.489 · early delete per insert 0.31 |
| 04.fixes_with_tests | fixes usually come with a testfixes 390 · share 0.51 · with tests 199 |
| 04.fix_share_trend | fixing is not crowding out building |
| 04.compat_layers | little code is kept for the old wayshare 0.0 · code files 639 · compat files 0 |
| 06.telemetry_presence | a telemetry or error-reporting library is referencednote presence only; whether anyone watches it is not visible here · matches 20 |
| 06.healthcheck_presence | a health or readiness check is defined |
| 06.usage_reporting_default | the product's code names no reporting hostsettings on 0 · settings off 0 |
| 06.deployed_image_floats | every deployed image names a versionimages 2 · floating 0 |
| 06.release_markers | releases are markedtags last year 50 · release commits 42 · changelog commits 6 |
| 06.migrate_on_start | migrations do not run at container start |
| 03.active_contributors | more than one contributor active in the trailing yearall time 81 · active 12mo 65 |
| 03.drive_by_contributors | an open contributor base, where one-commit contributors are normalauthors 81 · one off share 0.716 |
| 03.contributor_attrition | the dominant contributor is still activeauthors 81 · top share more than half · top contributor last committed within the last three months |
| 03.critical_path_ownership | more than one person changes the critical pathsauthors 81 |
| 03.second_contributor_attrition | the second and third contributors are still active |
| 02.merge_discipline | a meaningful share of recent change carries evidence of reviewmerges 3 · window last 24 months · with tracked 123 |
| 02.ci_presence | CI configuration is present in the working treecount 12 |
| 02.test_presence | tests are present in a normal proportion to sourcetests 825 · source 1,192 · test ratio 0.692 |
| 02.release_cadence | tags are presenttags 64 |
| 02.conventional_commits | commit subjects generally carry contentsampled 1,486 · low content share 0.086 |
| 02.branch_protection_hints | process scaffolding is present in the repository |
| 02.ci_runs_tests | CI invokes a test runnerconfigs 12 · with tests 3 |
| 02.skipped_tests | few tests are switched offfocused 0 · skipped 10 · test files 713 |
| 02.ci_test_gating | no test run in CI is written so that it cannot failconfigs 12 |
| 02.revert_share | change is rarely undoneshare 0.004 · reverts 6 · recent commits 1,485 |
| 02.dependency_update_cadence | dependencies move with the codelockfiles 12 · commits since 14 · days since lockfile changed 1 |
| 02.flaky_test_markers | tests are not retried until they passtest retries 0 · suite retries 0 |
| 02.lint_in_build | a linter or formatter runs in the buildwired 3 · ci configs 12 · product files 639 |
| 02.commit_size | changes arrive in reviewable sizesshare 0.034 · commits 1,405 · over 2000 lines 48 |
| 01.burst_import | no commit run met both the rate and the net-addition thresholdgap seconds 180 · min add ratio 3.0 · min net added 2,000 |
| 01.initial_dump | first commit is not a disproportionate share of the codebaseinsertions 42 · share of insertions 0.0001 |
| 01.message_uniformity | commit subjects vary in wording and lengthlength stdev 22.37 · repeat share 0.056 |
| 01.revision_depth | most files were revisited after they were first writtenfiles seen 692 · write once share 0.153 |
| 01.duplicated_blocks | little shipping code is repeated verbatim across filesshare 0.0032 · product files 639 · distinct blocks 93,599 |
| 01.build_reproducibility | every base image names a versionfloating 0 · from lines 2 |
| 01.unfinished_migration | no language migration is stalled halfway |
| 01.weights_in_git | no model weights are committedfiles 0 |
| 05.committed_secrets | no credential-shaped strings outside test and fixture pathsnote the working tree only; the history is 05.5 · patterns 8 · files read 1,442 |
| 05.security_guardrails | at least one standard guard rail is configured |
| 05.dependency_pinning | a lockfile is committed, so builds are reproduciblelockfile True |
| 05.license_present | a licence file is presentfound True |
| 05.secrets_management_pattern | no environment file is committed outside tests and examplesenv files 0 |
| 05.privileged_workloads | no workload runs privileged or in the host's namespacessites 0 · behind a setting or built here 0 |
| 05.credentials_in_deploy_config | deployment configuration references secrets, never holds themfiles 0 · sites 0 |
| 05.signing_material | no signing keystore or profile is committedfiles 0 |
| 05.license_copyleft_inherited | the project is itself AGPL-3.0, so copyleft components carry no obligation it has not already acceptedown license AGPL-3.0 · copyleft components 1 |
| 05.license_vendored_unlicensed | no vendored third-party code is committedcomponents 0 |
| 05.license_grant_unclear | the licence is recognisable as AGPL-3.0class network-copyleft · license AGPL-3.0 |
| 05.committed_native_libraries | no widely used compiled library is committed to the productlibraries 0 |
| 04.api_versions_coexisting | one API version is served, or none |
| 04.deprecations_lingering | few deprecations have outlived two yearsolder than two years 0 · files with deprecations 1 |
| 04.dependency_churn | few dependencies were added and dropped within 60 daysdependencies seen 231 · added in two years 231 · removed within 60 days 24 |
| 04.ci_platforms_dropped | no platform was dropped from CI in the last two years |
| 04.repository_status | the README's first screen states no end, move or freezestatements 0 |
| 02.development_elsewhere | nothing says development happens elsewhereno pr statements 0 · mirror statements 0 · replayed commit share 0.0 |
| 04.releases_stopped | releases keep pace with developmentmedian gap days 6.5 · days since last tag 1 · commits last 90 days 358 |
| 04.release_branch | the newest release was cut from the branch surveyedelsewhere 0 · on branch 64 · tags in window 64 |
| 03.single_maintainer | no file says one person maintains itstatements 0 |
Could not conclude, or did not apply — 35
Not a clean result. Each says why it could not answer here.
| Signal | Why |
|---|---|
| 04.dependency_sprawl | no dependency manifest of the product's own was found |
| 04.test_growth | Rust keeps unit tests inside the files they test, which a count by file name cannot see |
| 04.eol_runtime | no pinned runtime version to check |
| 04.schema_churn | no schema migrations to read |
| 04.dependency_redundancy | no JavaScript manifest to read |
| 06.structured_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logging setup is not read |
| 06.telemetry_depth | none at all is 06.1 |
| 06.print_logging | not assessed for Rust: its logger calls are not read |
| 06.alert_rules | no alert rules in the repository; they may live in a console |
| 06.probes_identical | no Kubernetes probes |
| 06.single_replica | no Kubernetes deployments |
| 06.environment_branching | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 06.feature_flags | no feature-flag service; flags may live elsewhere |
| 03.bus_factor_trend | fewer than three active years to compare |
| 03.joiners_and_leavers | too few regular contributors to see a trend |
| 02.long_lived_branches | too few merges to judge (squash and rebase leave none) |
| 01.swallowed_errors | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 01.notebook_outputs | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.outbound_timeouts | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.migration_reversibility | too few migrations to judge |
| 05.sql_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.shell_from_strings | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.unsafe_deserialization | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.tls_verification_off | not assessed for Rust, the language the product is written in: this check's patterns read other languages only |
| 05.resource_limits | no Kubernetes workload manifests |
| 05.public_env_secret | not a frontend |
| 05.unsafe_html | not a frontend |
| 05.source_maps_shipped | not a frontend |
| 05.cleartext_traffic | not a mobile app |
| 05.dataset_provenance | not a data or machine-learning repository |
| 05.license_manifest_conflict | no packaging manifest states a licence |
| 04.flags_accumulating | few or no feature flags in the history |
| 05.project_advisories | record incomplete: no advisory found in the sources that answered; OSV crates.io pgdog-plugin (an empty record for a package published here) did not |
| 05.advisory_record | record incomplete: no advisory against the project in the last 24 months; OSV crates.io pgdog-plugin (an empty record for a package published here) did not answer |
| 05.project_exploited | no affecting advisory is on CISA's Known Exploited list |
Anyone can check this report against the authoritative record — click the stamp, or enter ZCRE-6A0A-BW7C at borehole.dev/verify.
The code commits to the 106 checks this run performed, the bands they produced, and the commit they were read at. It does not cover checks written since.
Put the mark in your README
The image is wrapped in a link to the verification page, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust. If you embed it: link it to the report, remove it if the report is delisted, and do not present it as a certification or an endorsement.
[](https://borehole.dev/verify/ZCRE6A0ABW7C?via=badge)
Where this scan ran
This scan ran on ordinary cloud infrastructure (cloud-run), not in a hardware-isolated confidential VM. Nothing about it is attested by Google.
What an attested survey proves, and what it does not.
What this scan did with the repository — 7 steps
Written by the steps themselves as they ran, not described afterwards. A hand-written account of a data flow drifts the first time somebody changes the flow and not the account.
| At | Step | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0s | read repository metadata from the GitHub API | size mb: 14.2authenticated: False |
| 2.9s | cloned the repository to a temporary directory | depth: full |
| 4.5s | read the git history | commits: 1489tracked files: 1511 |
| 85.7s | ran the deterministic checks | blame pass: Trueread working tree: False |
| 85.7s | recorded where this scan ran | attested: Falseenvironment: cloud-run |
| 101.0s | kept the facts, never the source, for re-reading under new checks | |
| 101.0s | deleting the working copy |
Total 101.0s ·source content sent off this machine: none · calls to a language model: 0 · the clone was deleted when the survey ended
An automated reading of a repository's code and its history up to one commit, with public advisory records. It may be wrong, it is not legal, financial, investment or security advice, and it does not replace diligence by a qualified person. It is provided for information: nobody may rely on it (Borehole's terms, section 3).