News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: Honker – Postgres NOTIFY/LISTEN Semantics for SQ... by tuo-lei on Thursday April 23, 2026 @10:48AM (#47876399)
atomic commit with the business data is the selling point over separate IPC. external message passing always has the 'notification sent but transaction rolled back' problem and that gets messy.

one thing i'm curious about: WAL checkpoint. when SQLite truncates WAL back to zero, does the stat() polling handle that correctly? feels like there's a window where events could get lost.

Re:Show HN: Honker – Postgres NOTIFY/LISTEN Semantics for SQ... by russellthehippo on Thursday April 23, 2026 @04:05PM (#47881040)
The WAL file sticks around but gets truncated so that counts as an update. Though I don’t have tests for this. Good input, thanks I’ll make sure
Re:Show HN: Honker – Postgres NOTIFY/LISTEN Semantics for SQ... by kippinsula on Friday April 24, 2026 @09:45AM (#47890221)
the atomicity is the whole game. we burned time on a Postgres+SQS setup where the enqueue happened in a trigger that fired before the commit was visible to other connections. added retry logic, then polling on the worker side, then eventually moved the enqueue inside the transaction. at that point you're basically reinventing what Honker does, just with more moving parts. the 'notification sent, row not committed' class of bug is usually silent and timing-dependent, which makes it brutal to track down.