Absolutely on point.

Postgres can and will scale to workloads that average developers can't comprehend. I've used Postgres professionally since 2003 doing everything from run of the mill web work to high volume log aggregation systems with massive datasets. Postgres can ingest and index hundreds of thousands of records per second on pretty modest hardware by today's standards. One just needs to learn the tool.

Postgres is far more "boring" and battle tested than Redis. All the hipster tech that came out of Web 2.0 companies (including Cassandra and Redis) has hallmarks of being built by junior developers who refused to learn and then build upon state of the art and went on to reinvent many wheels quite poorly.

You had some reasonable points but then you segued into name calling and baseless negativity. Both redis and Cassandra are well built, well understood common industry tools that have been use at scale for many years now. With their own trade offs yes , but quit it with the “built by junior hipster developers” BS, it’s not a good look

I stand by my point. It was all reactionary stuff. I went to the conferences and saw the talks by those bright eyed young developers. Their disdain for RDBMS and SQL was as fervent as it was misguided. They hailed a new era of Big Data and NoSQL. Hadoop was gonna be the way to store it all or you weren't webscale.

Forward a decade and most of it is in the dustbin of unmanageable tech while good ole RDBMS outlived them all. Mongo is about the only one I still hear about and see pop up in job ads. Might share the fate of Hadoop too when people learn that Postgres can index JSON too and even be sharded if you need to (you likely don't).

If you think that redis and Cassandra are in the “dustbin” then I don’t know what to tell you, except that you’re possibly very out of touch. Especially redis, it seems to be used everywhere

You may be confusing redis with mongo which definitely suffered that. Redis is simple and well designed when used as directed.

Won't adding item to the queue leas to fsyncs on each commit? That first thing comes to my mind and worries me

Fsyncs can be combined. You don‘t need 40k fsyncs for 40k inserts. While one fsync is running multiple inserts are queued and fsnced together when e.g. the last fsync is done.