zlacker

>>andren+(OP)
Yup. A lot of heavy users of Postgres eventually hit the same barrier. Here's another take from Uber: https://www.uber.com/blog/postgres-to-mysql-migration/

I had a similar personal experience. In my previous job we used Postgres to implement a task queuing system, and it created a major bottleneck, resulting in tons of concurrency failures and bloat.

And most dangerously, the system failed catastrophically under load. As the load increased, most transactions ended up in concurrent failures, so very little actual work got committed. This increased the amount of outstanding tasks, resulting in even higher rate of concurrent failures.

And this can happen suddenly, one moment the system behaves well, with tasks being processed at a good rate, and the next moment the queue blows up and nothing works.

I re-implemented this system using pessimistic locking, and it turned out to work much better. Even under very high load, the system could still make forward progress.

The downside was having to make sure that no deadlocks can happen.

>>cybera+kL
I remember when Uber got roasted by the postgresql mailing list over this: ultimately, a post mortem was done on all of Uber's claims, and it was basically proven that they were incompetent, did not read any available "best practices" guides, did not seek any external help, and treated it like it was some sort of mysql-esque database and used it as wrong as humanly possible.

Uber's workload at the time, ironically, was not enough to make a postgresql server running moderately decent hardware to fall over if you actually read the manual.

Uber's engineering team will never be able to live this down.

>>Diablo+hi1
Anyone has a link to that mailing list thread to share?

>>endorp+lr1
From what I can Google it seems to be the opposite of that, where they acknowledged Postgres's shortcoming in the mailing list:

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/4vms8x/why_we_...

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5797D5A1.5030009%40agl...