Re: Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:37:02 +0200
Thomas Güttler <guettliml(at)thomas-guettler(dot)de> wrote:

> Is is possible that PostgreSQL will replace these building blocks in the future?
>
> - redis (Caching)
> - rabbitmq (amqp)
> - s3 (Blob storage)
>
> One question is "is it possible?", then next "is it feasible?"
>
> I think it would be great if I could use PG only and if I could
> avoid the other types of servers.
>
> The benefit is not very obvious on the first sight. I think it will saves you
> time, money and energy only in the long run.
>
> What do you think?

There's a well-written article I saw recently that directly addresses
your question ... I'm too lazy to find it, but google will probably
turn it up for you.

The upshot is that Postgres does a lot of things well, but when the need
comes up to do them _REALLY_ well, you're generally better off picking a
tool that's specialized for your needs.

Take a message bus for example. PG's notify works pretty damn well as a
centralized message bus. But if you need a distributed message bus or you
need massive throughput, you're almost certainly better of with something
specifically designed for that purpose.

Of course, if you need structured, relational data to be stored reliably,
you can't do much better than Postgres.

--
Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>