Compare Scenarios

Migration Step 1

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Write-Heavy Transactional Platform: triggered by 'Dual-write inconsistency events observed in production: DB w'. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Payment provider timeout causing full checkout rollback and '.

Migration Step 2

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Write-Heavy Transactional Platform: triggered by 'Primary write CPU > 70% sustained during peak windows; WAL v'. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Product search p99 > 1s; faceted navigation (category + pric'.

Migration Step 3

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Write-Heavy Transactional Platform: triggered by 'Audit completeness requirements grow beyond point-in-time ba'. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Email/push notification provider timeouts causing checkout l'.

PgBouncer wait_queue > 0 sustained; application p99 write latency rising faster than PostgreSQL p99; pool_mode=transaction showing >80% utilization

Tier 1: Connection Pool Saturation: PgBouncer pool_size too small for write concurrency profile. Recommended evolution: Increase PgBouncer pool_size incrementally; profile transaction duration to right-size pool; consider separate pools for write-heavy and read-only workloads .

PostgreSQL checkpoint_completion_target warnings in logs; wal_buffers flushing more than once per second; pg_stat_bgwriter shows checkpoints_req rising; write p99 > 20ms without query explanation

Tier 2: WAL and Checkpoint Pressure: Write rate exceeding PostgreSQL's WAL flush and checkpoint throughput. Recommended evolution: Tune checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9; increase wal_buffers to 64MB; move PostgreSQL WAL to a dedicated NVMe volume separate from data directory .

PostgreSQL pg_locks showing high RowExclusiveLock contention on inventory_items for specific sku_ids; checkout p99 > 2s for contended SKUs; deadlock errors appearing in application logs during sale events; effective checkout throughput for hot SKUs well below per-request checkout latency would predict

Tier 1: Flash Sale Inventory Contention: Concurrent saga checkout attempts competing for the same inventory row via row-level locking. Recommended evolution: Introduce a per-SKU checkout serialization queue at the application layer : all concurrent checkout requests for the same SKU are queued and processed serially, converting lock contention into queue latency. Alternatively, use PostgreSQL advisory locks with non-blocking trylock: requests that cannot acquire the lock immediately return a "sold out" response rather than queuing. For very high flash sale volumes, pre-allocate inventory slots (reserve N slots per sale event, each slot is a row with one reservation) to spread lock contention across N rows instead of one. .

Checkout p99 tracking payment provider p99 almost linearly; connection pool utilization on the payment service rising during payment provider slowdowns; circuit breaker trip events appearing in payment service metrics; saga timeout events correlated with payment provider latency spikes

Tier 2: Payment Provider Latency Amplifying Checkout Latency: Checkout saga holding a database connection and an inventory reservation open for the duration of the payment provider call: payment latency directly amplifies connection pool pressure. Recommended evolution: Decouple the payment step from the synchronous checkout saga: reserve inventory and create the order record synchronously, then process payment asynchronously. The customer receives an "order confirmed, payment processing" state immediately; the payment step runs as a separate saga step triggered by an event. This reduces the synchronous checkout latency to the inventory reservation time, not the payment provider round-trip time. .