zlacker

>>anonu+(OP)
Just because something can be used to do something doesn't mean it should. Kafka is specifically designed for this purpose, it is free, and it is easy to learn and use. If "starting with Postgres and then switching out when the time comes" saves money then I can understand. Otherwise use the right tool for the right job, right from the start.

>>petilo+tb
This is advice that seems reasonable but is actually pretty harmful.

Take a startup with a few users. The senior engineer decides they need pub/sub to ship a new feature. With Kafka, the team goes to learn about Kafka best practices, choose client libraries, and learn the Kafka quirks. They also need to spin up Kafka instances. They ship it in a month.

With postgres, they’ve got an MVP in a day, and shipped within a week.

>>jastr+5f
How does any of this equally not apply to PostgreSQL ?

Is this some magical database where you don't need to worry about access patterns, best practices or how it is deployed.

>>threes+1r
> How does any of this equally not apply to PostgreSQL ?

1. Postgres is easier to setup and run (than Kafka) 2. Most shops already have Postgres running (TFA is targeted to these shops) 3. Postgres is easier to adapt to changing access patterns (than Kafka).

----

> Is this some magical ...

Why must your adversary (Postgres) meet some mythical standard when your fighter (Kafka) doesn't meet even basic standards.