Nobody is saying use one tool for everything. In fact the argument is why not use PG until you grow out of it (most people won’t).
Agree on devops. Of course.
There’s still the security surface area argument and the overall complexity argument—complexity of the system of systems is NOT reduced by adding technologies.
By way of analogy, using military aircraft, take the F35 vs. the A-10. The F35 is insanely more complex than the nearly indestructible A10 in large part due to the massive number of subsystems, software, sensors, etc. Sure the F35 way more capable (this is NOT a head to head argument about the military capabilities or said aircraft) than the A10, but it also has orders of magnitude more failure modes. More parts. More complexity. More opportunities for failure. This is engineering fact.
People are literally saying to default to using PG for "everything". That's the attitude I'm arguing against.
What's frustrating about this conversation is that I'm literally, right now, supporting two different queueing systems based on PG and Redis, so I get on a very real level, the tradeoffs. I know in great detail the problems that come up, but HN is not conducive to talking at that level of detail. At this point every comment I make is flagged and downvoted, so why would I pay time into a system that has clearly decided my opinion isn't relevant?
I mean i think it’s mostly the blunt, binary right/wrong nature of your posts getting you this reaction. For most folks they’ve moved past that and almost all of us have non perfect world systems where we’ve made trade offs. It’s just not my (and I guess a lit of folks) reality to be so black/white on this.
Of course there are trade offs, of course we live in imperfect situations where we have to deal with shit that isn't ideal, but sitting around pretending like everything is alright is just lying to ourselves.
You're stuck in PG because your DevOps team is a bunch of incompetent dolts, so yeah, make the best out of the bad situation and go ahead and use something like Que.
Just don't develop Stockholm Syndrome while doing it.
People in this thread are protecting their own egos by expressing how great PG is as a message broker, but it's harmful to the industry to let that kind of attitude perpetuate.
Agree on devops. Of course.
There’s still the security surface area argument and the overall complexity argument—complexity of the system of systems is NOT reduced by adding technologies.
By way of analogy, using military aircraft, take the F35 vs. the A-10. The F35 is insanely more complex than the nearly indestructible A10 in large part due to the massive number of subsystems, software, sensors, etc. Sure the F35 way more capable (this is NOT a head to head argument about the military capabilities or said aircraft) than the A10, but it also has orders of magnitude more failure modes. More parts. More complexity. More opportunities for failure. This is engineering fact.