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

Am 30.04.2017 um 17:09 schrieb Bill Moran:
> 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.
>

I tried to find it, but failed. Can you give me some keywords to find
this well-written article?

> 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.

SELECT FOR UPDATE ... SKIP LOCKED looks nice:

https://blog.2ndquadrant.com/what-is-select-skip-locked-for-in-postgresql-9-5/

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

Yes, PG is our solid central data storage.

Regards,
Thomas Güttler

--
I am looking for feedback for my personal programming guidelines:
https://github.com/guettli/programming-guidelines