Maybe, but I think that's just a function of where you draw the database boundary. My naive (external to Google) understanding of Spanner is that it probably is drawn to include these sorts of things, and similarly FoundationDB's internal architecture looks a bit like this setup.
I think perhaps the view of a database being a single server codebase like this is a bit naive. When you read about how Meta deploy MySQL for example, it's a whole service ecosystem that provides different levels of caching, replication, etc, to create a database at a higher level of abstraction that provides the necessary properties. FoundationDB is similarly better viewed as a set of microservices. When you architect a database like that it is possible to achieve these things, but that doesn't seem to be a new idea, that seems to be just how it has been done in the industry for a while now. The article isn't entirely clear on whether they realise this or are proposing something new.
I think perhaps the view of a database being a single server codebase like this is a bit naive. When you read about how Meta deploy MySQL for example, it's a whole service ecosystem that provides different levels of caching, replication, etc, to create a database at a higher level of abstraction that provides the necessary properties. FoundationDB is similarly better viewed as a set of microservices. When you architect a database like that it is possible to achieve these things, but that doesn't seem to be a new idea, that seems to be just how it has been done in the industry for a while now. The article isn't entirely clear on whether they realise this or are proposing something new.