> On Apr 30, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de> wrote:
>
> Is is possible that PostgreSQL will replace these building blocks in the future?
>
> - redis (Caching)
> - rabbitmq (amqp)
> - s3 (Blob storage)
No.
You can use postgresql for caching, but caches don't require the data
durability that a database offers, and can be implemented much more
efficiently.
You can use postgresql to provide message queue services and it
does so reasonably well, particularly when the messages are generated within
the database. But it's not going to do so as efficiently, or be as easy to
monitor, to make highly redundant or to scale across a whole datacenter
as a dedicated message queue service.
You could use postgresql to store binary blobs, but it'd be a horrifically
inefficient way to do it. (Using postgresql to store the metadata, while
the content is stored elsewhere, sure).
Use the right tool for the job.
Cheers,
Steve
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Güttler
>
>
> --
> I am looking for feedback for my personal programming guidelines:
> https://github.com/guettli/programming-guidelines
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general