> The primary reason we migrated away from Google SQL for PostgreSQL is because we discovered a bug that was causing data corruption. This was a known bug that is fixed in newer PostgreSQL versions. However, Google SQL for PostgreSQL is several versions behind. The lack of response from the support acknowledging the issue was a big enough red-flag to move on. I am glad we did move on, because it has been 8 months since we have raised the issue, and the version of PostgreSQL has not been updated to-date
We have had similar experiences on various DB related issues. AWS are miles ahead on anything to do around storage and databases.
We had a production Kubernetes outage caused by a bug in Google Cloud. We were paying for gold level support.
They deescalated and reescelated our ticket 3 times.
In the end they closed the ticket and sent me a link to "Architecting distributed application" docs. I think they were trying to be condescending. That idiot should have been canned.
Eventually I threw a big fit in the Google Cloud slack channel and thockin ended up looking at the issue and finding the bug.
agreed - backups have nothing to do with an instance. i should be able to spin up and down postgresql instances, but backups should be stored (and billed) as per cloud storage rates.
I mean setting this up is extremly simple, in a High availability setting on K8s. So I would guess that a company in the size of Google can actually find out how to add a way to run pg_upgrade to upgrade a cluster (inject something into the image that runs the task....). Even on AWS it will run pg_upgrade with a downtime (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_...).
Unless you make the ill-advised choice to use AWS Aurora :(
We did that and only then found out that despite documentation suggesting the contrary [1], there is no upgrade path for major versions of AWS Aurora PostgreSQL. You're stuck with whatever you had when you started. (Unless you want to do a pg_backup/pg_restore which could take weeks.)
Not sure if this comment was about the data corruption bug in Cloud SQL's PostgreSQL version, but the benchmarks we ran at https://aiven.io/blog/postgresql-cloud-performance/ used Aiven's PostgreSQL service on top of VMs from the cloud infrastructure providers and weren't affected by Cloud SQL issues.
The same Linux, PostgreSQL, etc versions were used on all platforms. We didn't use RDS, CloudSQL or other managed services from the infrastructure providers, but the PDF version of the presentation does include comparison of our managed PostgreSQL service with RDS PG and Aurora PG if you're interested.
We have had similar experiences on various DB related issues. AWS are miles ahead on anything to do around storage and databases.