zlacker

If you're big enough to worry about the scalability of Postgres, you're big enough to experience this failure fairly often IMO.

>>peterh+(OP)
Scalability was the second of two concerns I listed. The first was additional application complexity that real message queues hide from you by virtue of being a system built for that usage pattern.

>you're big enough to experience this failure fairly often IMO

Please explain how? You would either have to suffer from frequent network connectivity issues that affects only your db and not your queue, or your process must be mysteriously dying in the microseconds between those 2 operations. Either of those cases are not something I would consider things that happen "fairly often," even if you were processing trillions of messages per day.

In my experience, the vast majority of message processing failures happen at the worker level.

>>daenz+u
If the queue goes down you end up updating the db without enqueuing a job and now an engineer needs to go in and re enqueue the missing jobs manually.