Re: [GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1w3sq5W2eJ_Asx-YwS6aCUO+Zb93tYqZu4=B4W6zCM1mw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?  (Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de>)
Responses [GENERAL] Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in thefuture?  (Thomas Güttler <guettliml@thomas-guettler.de>)
List pgsql-general
On Sun, 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)

PostgreSQL has its own caching.  It might not be quite as effective as redis', but you can us it if you are willing to take those trade offs.

 - rabbitmq (amqp)

PostgreSQL has its own system for this, and other ones can be layered on top of fully transactional tables.  
Again, you can use one or the other, depending on your needs, if you are willing to deal with the trade offs.

 
 - s3 (Blob storage)

No.  You can certainly use PostgreSQL to store blobs.  But then, you need to store the PostgreSQL data **someplace**.  If you don't store it in S3, you have to store it somewhere else.
 
Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Igor Korot
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Compatibility of libpg
Next
From: Alvaro Aguayo Garcia-Rada
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] BDR replication and table triggers