So postgresql upgrades are a piece of cake if your users doesn't care if your system is available to them. Is this some paradoy of the older claim that MongoDb is a great system if your user doesn't care if their data is lost?
We pay Microsoft to perform upgrades transparently for us. They have multiple servers and they shuffle transaction logs and traffic between them to ensure availability during outages and upgrades. There are 6 copies of each database in different regions. Not sure how that is relevant, though?
But it is not. It's complex to do properly, just like with most if not all other databases. Claiming that it is easy as is just ignorant and spreading such misinformation is bad.
It's not a weakness in Postgres.
Managing upgrades in a highly available, close to 100% uptime database is hard.
If you want piece of cake, outsource this service and be happy enjoying the database features working as you please.
i am a fan of planning for maintenance. planned downtime is definitely accepted by most of the population. i mean what you gonna do?
much better a planned downtime than an outage. leaving a system to rot just because the architecture is "don't touch it while it's working" is a sure recipe for a disaster of some kind.
Just the security patching of the host OS will likely consume a bunch of those minutes.
Not sure what point you were trying to make apart from that. I am not advocating that people should leave system to rot.