[redwood]

A good reminder of how people developing a mental model of adding read replicas as a way to scale is a slippery slope. At the end of the day you're scaling only one specific part of your system with certain consistency dynamics that are difficult to reason about

[terminalshort]

Works fine for workloads like:

1. I need to grab some rows from a table

2. Eventual consistency is good enough

And that's a lot of workloads.

[candiddevmike]

As a user, I've come to realize the situations where I think eventual consistency (or delayed processing) are good enough aren't the same as the folks developing most products. Nothing annoys me more than stuff not showing up immediately or having to manually refresh.

[darth_avocado]

Sometimes users want everything to show up immediately, but not pay extra for the feature. Everything real time is expensive. Eventual consistency is a good thing for most systems.

[terminalshort]

For a workload where you need true read after write you can just send those reads to the writer. But even if you don't there are plenty of workarounds here. You can send a success response to the user when the transaction commits to the writer and update the UI on response. The only case where this will fail is if the user manually reloads the page within the replication lag window and the request goes to the reader. This should be exceedingly rare in a single region cluster, and maybe a little less rare in a multi-region set up, but still pretty rare. I almost never see > 1s replication lag between regions in my Aurora clusters. There are certainly DB workloads where this will not be true, but if you are in a high replication lag cluster, you just don't want to use that for this type of UI dependency in the first place.

[nilamo]

I think the key here is just proper notifications. Yes it's eventually consistent, but having a "processing" or "update in progress" is a huge improvement over showing a user old data.

[morshu9001]

That's readonly. RW workloads usually don't tolerate eventual consistency on the thing they're writing.

[terminalshort]

Yeah, if you have a mix of reads and writes in a workflow, you gotta hit the writer node. But a lot of times an endpoint is only reading data from a particular DB.

[redwood]

The future you or future team member may struggle to reason about that in the future

[nijave]

You can hit the same problems horizontally scaling compute. One instance reads from the DB, a request hits a different instance which updates the DB. The original instance writes to the DB and overwrites the changes or makes decisions based on stale data.

More broadly a distributed system problem