zlacker

>>abelan+(OP)
I love seeing commercial activity around using Postgres as a queue. Last year I wrote a post titled "Choose Postgres queue technology" that spent quite a bit of time on the front page here. I don't think it's likely that my post actually sparked new development in this area, but for the people who were already using Postgres queues in their applications, I hope it made them feel more comfortable talking about it in public. And I've seen a notable increase in public discussions around the idea, and they're not all met with derision. There's long been a dogma around Postgres and relational databases being the wrong tool for the job, and indeed they are not perfect, but neither is adding Redis or RabbitMQ to our software stacks simply to support queue use cases. Kudos to the Hatchet team! I hope you all find success.

>>acaloi+fj
> neither is adding Redis or RabbitMQ to our software stacks simply to support queue use cases

I disagree that "adding Redis to our software stack" to support a queue is problematic. It's a single process and extremely simple. Instead now with tools like this, you're clobbering up your database with temporal tasks alongside your operational data.

>>hipade+CQ
Out of all the processes/infrastructure ive had to manage in my career, Redis has been the simplest, and least hassle out of all of them. Even when you add Redis sentinel to the picture, it just does its job