3 ms·
> We do NOT however offer in memory storage. This is on purpose, as persistence is a requirement for robustness. Oooo shots fired. :) I can see arguments both
by jedberg 5y ago
> We do NOT however offer in memory storage. This is on purpose, as persistence is a requirement for robustness.
Oooo shots fired. :)
I can see arguments both ways. You're totally correct in that queue robustness requires persistence. That being said, if it's an open source tool then it can make sense to offer in memory storage since they may have persistence in a different part of the stack.
- tasn 5y agoSure, but then you'd want to hide it behind an `--i-really-know-what-im-doing` flag to prevent people from shooting themselves in the foot. Also, even if the persistence is elsewhere in the stack, it's not obvious to me how disaster recovery will actually work. Same with accounting (e.g. marking a message as sent). I'm not saying it's not possible, it's just not immediately obvious to me how you can make that both simple and robust.
- subomi 5y agoOh, for clarity we do not support an in memory storage. We support an on disk storage & in memory queue. This enables the storage layer persist events across restarts.