Having transactions is quite handy.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SkyTools
I did a few talks on this at Sydpy as I used it at work quite a bit. It's handy when you already have postgresql running well and supported.
This said, I'd use a dedicated queue these days. Anything but RabbitMQ.
It works great until it doesn't, and the way it breaks puts you in a state that's very difficult to recover from. And if your excuse for using a database as a queue was that you were already running a database, that cuts both ways: congratulations, your queue mess has now brought down your primary datastore too.
This is similar to saying, 'if I mess up all the tables in one database I wreck the rest'. Just my opinion, but this is not actually a thing in databases.
Maybe compromised the performance of one database due to another loading things up? I think database are developed with this as an important consideration. I can't say I have seen this, but admit it's a possibility.
Also, if you run one postgres, you won't have of an issue running another if you have the experience in production.
If you mess up the tables in one database it doesn't affect others, but if you lock up the server where it can't respond to queries, that affects every database running on that server.
> Also, if you run one postgres, you won't have of an issue running another if you have the experience in production.
We're talking about using a different feature that you presumably haven't used before, so you won't necessarily know about the admin side of that.
How is it different from: putting multiple queues on same redis, when one queue is locked up, others queue are affected?
If that's a real risk, you can always put them into different instances. The solution is exactly the same for redis or postgresql