For some of the simpler sites sqlite would have been fine, but I do need Postgres anyway for some other stuff on my server so the overall burden of standardizing on Postgres only is less than having to do tuning for two different databases. In particular sqlite has worse defaults due to backwards compatibility, so you have to do a lot of upfront config for every table and DB.

Postgres version upgrades are basically painless, at my workplace our upgrades complete in so little time our users don't notice, and we have more data than probably 99.9999% of companies out there (mature company in aerospace industry).

Every time I start with sqlite I outgrow it in some way, so I start with postgres now.

From an engineering perspective, sqlite and PostgreSQL are equivalent.

The difference is only in the deployment/maintenance.

And considering the context he stated, zero downtime really doesn't seem like something he's worrying about.

(Me not taking this seriously)

I personally find Postgres WAY easier than SQLite simply because of the deployment story. I do a lot of hotfixes and dangerous stuff on personal projects, and having two databases complicates that tremendously. I like being able to run hot code on prod.

For the record, this is not the same reason I like postgres for actual production code