←back to thread

Why does everyone run ancient Postgres versions?

(neon.tech)
265 points davidgomes | 1 comments | 17 Oct 24 21:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
paulryanrogers ◴[17 Oct 24 23:59 UTC] No.41875055[source]▶
Upgrades are hard. There was no replication in the before times. The original block-level replication didn't work among different major versions. Slony was a painful workaround based on triggers that amplified writes.

Newer PostgreSQL versions are better. Yet still not quite as robust or easy as MySQL.

At a certain scale even MySQL upgrades can be painful. At least when you cannot spare more than a few minutes of downtime.

replies(7): >>41875126 #>>41876174 #>>41876232 #>>41876375 #>>41877029 #>>41877268 #>>41877959 #
slotrans ◴[18 Oct 24 04:00 UTC] No.41876232[source]▶
"Not as robust as MySQL"? Surely you're joking.
replies(4): >>41876309 #>>41876384 #>>41877139 #>>41927974 #
1. slotrans ◴[23 Oct 24 18:33 UTC] No.41927974[source]▶
It is funny reading the replies here.

I am a database specialist and have worn the DBA had for many years. I have run MySQL and Postgres in production, both self-hosted and using managed services. Postgres wins on every single dimension that matters, every time. Yes MySQL is easier to setup for non-experts. That counts for nothing.

If you are sticking up for MySQL in this thread... I just don't even know, man.