I see a lot of back and forth about postgres&#x27; suitability as a queuing system. I wonder if there&#x27;s a couple of separable problems here. Postgres backed queues - even very scalable ones - might work well for background jobs in a monolithic app backed by a single DB. Things like backgrounding sending an email etc.But usually when I reach for a queuing system, it&#x27;s because I want to decouple a part of the architecture. And in that case, it&#x27;s probably better to use a dedicated queueing system instead of postgres.I wonder if the two cases are conflated in a lot of online discussion.

&gt; The conventional wisdom around Postgres-backed queues is that they don&#x27;t scale.That might have been the case 10 years ago. In the past years there have been many Postgres powered queueing systems and even Rails switched to Postgres powered queues by default (SolidQueue) more than 3 years ago.

They certainly do, and I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a controversial take at this point.Shameless link to an older article about throughput with Oban (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;oban.pro&#x2F;articles&#x2F;one-million-jobs-a-minute-with-oban" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;oban.pro&#x2F;articles&#x2F;one-million-jobs-a-minute-with-oba...</a>), and in follow-up research we&#x27;ve sustained 12k&#x2F;s with a p99 under ~100ms.

indeed, every ~week with essentially the same thing: skip locked.

These days, most of them are from the DBOS folks. :)

Reading Postgres queuing posts always seem like deja vu. People love to write about them

Making Postgres queues scale