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

On April 30, 2017 1:37:02 PM GMT+02:00, "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)

These are three very different sets of functionalities, each requiring a different approach. I am curious as to why you are thinking about having a single piece of software that does these three very different things.

>One question is "is it possible?", then next "is it feasible?"

Possible? Sure: p != 0
Probable? No
Desirable? No

>I think it would be great if I could use PG only and if I could
>avoid the other types of servers.

When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But hammering screws doesn't get you very far. Sometimes you need a screwdriver and on other days a glue gun...

>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?

Do one thing(*) and do that thing well. Don't try to be everything to everyone.

--
Thomas
(Sent from my mobile device, please forgive brevity or typos.)