Please note that up until today an async rust database library does not give you any measurable performance advantage compared to a sync database library. In addition to that it won't even matter for most applications as they don't reach the required scale to even hit that bottleneck. As a matter of facts crates.io just run well on sync diesel up until maybe a month ago. They have now switched to diesel-async, for certain specific not-performance related reasons. The lead developer there told me specifically that from a performance point of view the service would have been fine with sync diesel for quite a while without problems, and that's with somewhat exponential growth of requests.
Other than that the async rust ecosystem is still in a place that makes it literally impossible to provide strong guarantees around handling transactions and make sure that they ended, which is a main reason why diesel-async is not considered stable from my side yet. This problem exists in all other async rust database libraries as well, as it's an language level problem. They just do not document this correctly.
Other than that the async rust ecosystem is still in a place that makes it literally impossible to provide strong guarantees around handling transactions and make sure that they ended, which is a main reason why diesel-async is not considered stable from my side yet. This problem exists in all other async rust database libraries as well, as it's an language level problem. They just do not document this correctly.