Ooof. I don't mind the OSS/pro feature gate for the most part, but I really don't love that "Pro version uses smarter heartbeats to track producer liveness."

There's a difference between QoL features and reliability functions; to me, at least, that means that I can't justify trying to adopt it in my OSS projects. It's too bad, too, because this looks otherwise fantastic.

▲

sorentwo an hour ago | parent [-]

With a typical Redis or RabbitMQ backed durable queue you’re not guaranteed to get the job back at all after an unexpected shutdown. That quote is also a little incorrect—producer liveness is tracked the same way, it’s purely how “orphaned” jobs are rescued that is different.

▲

offbyone an hour ago | parent [-]

"jobs that are long-running might get rescued even if the producer is still alive" indicates otherwise. It suggests that jobs that are in progress may be double-scheduled. That's a feature that I think shouldn't be gated behind a monthly pro subscription; my unpaid OSS projects don't justify it.

	▲	dec0dedab0de 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. I try to avoid using anything that has this freemium model of opensource, but I let it slide for products that provide enterprise features at a cost. This feels like core functionality is locked away, and the opensource part is nothing more than a shareware, or demo/learning version. Edit: I looked into it a bit more, and it seems we can launch multiple worker nodes, which doesn't seem as bad as what I originally thought