Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+
От | Jorge Solórzano |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+cVU8NV0igQR9Vy8Zf5GhgXSY9ymo0m5ccT_zsAjfFh0zYDOA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ (Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8kdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+
Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ |
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On 03/04/17 21:47, Brad DeJong wrote:
On 2017-04-03 at 09:32-05, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8kdata.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@8kdata.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
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: