| From: | Brad DeJong <Brad(dot)Dejong(at)infor(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>, Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ |
| Date: | 2017-04-03 19:47:40 |
| Message-ID: | CY1PR0201MB18971CD6CE69C3B4550078FFFF080@CY1PR0201MB1897.namprd02.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
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.
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.
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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2017-04-03 19:58:26 | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2017-04-03 19:42:43 | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ |