The is a common question, but there are certain things that are just better done in camera than post. Then there are situations where a combination of in camera + post provides optimum results. Astrophotography is one that can and does use both. The longer you can expose, the more information obtained. For ultimate long shots, you need to compensate for the earth's rotation. You continue to snap away all night, and then take those images into post where you stack the images. The stacking software adds the data together resulting in a single image that is the equivalent of a single image with an exposure time equaling the sum of each shot.

Why do this? If you do single long exposure, there is a very good chance your image will have an airplane fly through, a satellite streak by, or something more terrestrial like a fellow stargazer shining a laser through your frame, car headlights, etc. Taking a series of short exposures limits those issues, and if it happens, you throw out that shot and only loose 45-60 seconds instead of 15 minutes.

Stacking can also use shots you take when the lens is covered called dark frames. You take this for the same exposure time as the normal shots. This provides a noise pattern that builds up in any electronic sensor as the heat builds up from staying energized for so long (as well as natural summertime heat). That noise pattern can then be subtracted by the stacking software. The stacking software can also realign the images so you can use shots from multiple shoot days (er, nights).

Taking short exposures and stacking also can help by removing the effects of periodic error in the mount gear-train (or belt-train).

You need a long exposure to let in enough light for stars to become clearly visible. If you expose for longer than ~ 30 seconds, then the earth will rotate enough to start causing star trails. This will physically rotate the camera to counteract earths rotation.