zlacker

>>abelan+(OP)
I'm super interested in a Postgres-only task queue, but I'm still unclear from your post whether the only broker dependency is PostgreSQL. You mention working towards getting rid of the RabbitMQ dependency but the existence of RabbitMQ in your stack is dissonant with the statement 'a conviction that PostgreSQL is the right choice for a task queue'. In my mind, if you are using Postgres as a queue, I'm not sure why you'd also have RabbitMQ.

>>dalber+r8
We're using RabbitMQ for pub/sub between different components of our engine. The actual task queue is entirely backed by Postgres, but things like streaming events between different workers are done through RabbitMQ at the moment, as well as sending a message from one component to another when you distribute the engine components. I've written a little more about this here: >>39643940 .

We're eventually going to support a lightweight Postgres-backed messaging table, but the number of pub/sub messages sent through RabbitMQ is typically an order of magnitude higher than the number of tasks sent.

>>abelan+A9
Do you find it frustrating that what people basically want is:

(1) you, for free

(2) develop all the functionality of RabbitMQ as a Postgres extension with the most permissive license

(3) in order to have it on RDS

(4) and never hear from you again?

This is a colorful exaggeration. But it’s true. It is playing out with the pgvecto-rs people too.

People don’t want Postgres because it is good. They want it because it is offered by RDS, which makes it good.

>>doctor+0d
At least pgvector is financially supported by AWS.