←back to thread

Why does everyone run ancient Postgres versions?

(neon.tech)
264 points davidgomes | 3 comments | 17 Oct 24 21:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.612s | source
1. dboreham ◴[18 Oct 24 03:00 UTC] No.41875996[source]▶
Quick note that the article is talking about why folks are on versions of PG that are not ancient (14, 15).
replies(1): >>41877185 #
2. craigds ◴[18 Oct 24 07:45 UTC] No.41877185[source]▶
right? we're on 13 and only now starting to consider upgrading to 16, and I don't think we're very abnormal and I don't consider 13 ancient. We have customers still using 9.3. (That last one does actually count as ancient.)
replies(1): >>41879517 #
3. briffle ◴[18 Oct 24 13:57 UTC] No.41879517[source]▶
Same exact boat. Logical replication is nicer than our 'in place' upgrades we did before, but still leaves lots of other issues.

We are constantly making changes to our schemas (adding tables, columns, etc). Its never an issue on physical standby's, it just gets created, but logical replication, we have to manually run the changes on the subscriber.

We have lots of instances where we create a new table for a feature coming, and alter another to add a column.

If those get missed on the logical subscriber, you don't even know until someone tries to write data to that new table or new column.

I know logical is supposed to be flexible, but I wish there was a setting to have a replica via logical, so I can handle upgrades easier.