[ctc24]

Why wouldn't you simply use SQLite (or some other in-memory flavor of SQL) instead of hacking the main Postgres db and adding load to the primary instance?

The author makes a valid point that there's something nice about using familiar tooling (including the SQL interface) for a cache, but it feels like there are better solutions.

[0x457]

Because SQLite is in process. Usually, when you start thinking about cache, you have more than one application server. Each application server running its own cache make cache invalidation a nightmare (I worked in a company where one genius did that and caused a lot of troubles). Don't show me any sqlite replication things because that's not how you want your cache to work.

My issue with running PostgreSQL as cache would be its thread per connection model and downsides of MVCC for cache.

[VWWHFSfQ]

> hacking the main Postgres db and adding load to the primary instance

nobody said this had to be on the primary database server, and how is this hacking?

Is every app server going to have its own local "sqlite cache"? Or is it going to use one of the sqlite server/replication things? So why not just use PG?

[ctc24]

That's a bit of a strawman argument. Per the post, you can't leverage this on a read replica, it has to be run on primary. So you're going to stand up and manage a full new Postgres instance for this?

I'm sure there are many cases when that makes sense, but there are many cases when that's also overkill. An in-memory cache inside your server will give you better performance, and a lot of less infrastructure maintenance complexity.