Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+

On 03/04/17 21:47, Brad DeJong wrote:
>
> On 2017-04-03 at 12:48-05, Jorge Solórzano wrote:
>
> > So +1 for drop support for Java 6, and -1 for drop support for Java 7.
>
> I agree. 6 is droppable, but there are still too many users stuck with
> Java 7 to drop it.
>

But as I said, they already have many versions to choose from.

> On 2017-04-03 at 09:32-05, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > However, I wonder if it would be such a big deal for people that are
> upgrading to
>
> > Postgres 10 and require SCRAM not to ask them to upgrade their JVM to
> a non EOLed
>
> > version.
>
> If only the people who want the new functionality are required to
> upgrade to Java 8, then I think it is not a big deal.
>
> If everyone who wants the latest pgjdbc patches has to upgrade to Java
> 8, then I think it is a big deal.
>

I believe the intersection is minimal. What is the chance of users
willing to upgrade to Postgres 10, needing SCRAM, running JRE6 or JRE7
and *not* wanting to upgrade their JRE? (all four conditions need to apply).
>
> On 2017-04-03 at 09:32-05, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think the intersection of people who go for very modern PG and non
> supported Java if almost 0.
>
> The problem with using that argument as a reason to move to Java 8 is
> that Java 6 and 7 are supported - just not for free.
>

I stand corrected. I mean now "non supported for free" or equivalent :)

Álvaro

--

Álvaro Hernández Tortosa

-----------
<8K>data