zlacker

[return to "Choose Postgres queue technology"]
1. vhirem+4o[view] [source] 2023-09-25 00:03:08
>>bo0tzz+(OP)
We used postgres for some of our queues back when we were at ~10 msg/s. It scaled quite a bit, but, honestly, setting up SQS or some other queue stack in AWS, GCP, or Azure is so simple and purpose built for the task (with DL queues and the like built in), I don’t know why you wouldn’t just go that route and not have to worry about that system shitting the bed and affecting the rest of the DB’s health.

It seems foolish. I am a big fan of “use the dumbest tool”, but sometimes engineers take it too far and you’re left with the dumbest tool with caveats that don’t seem worth it given the mainstream alternative is relatively cheap and simple.

◧◩
2. bicija+Io[view] [source] 2023-09-25 00:11:17
>>vhirem+4o
Transactions, data consistency. This is the answer that you will not find in SQS.
◧◩◪
3. mjb+hA[view] [source] 2023-09-25 02:34:40
>>bicija+Io
You can't do better than At Least Once if you're having side effects outside the database, so it's not clear that SQS's weaker semantics have any practical effect.
[go to top]