Bump MSRV from 1.88.0 to 1.94.0

[Jefffrey]

see previous bump

• Bump MSRV to 1.88.0 #18403

honestly my main motivation was i was using a feature from 1.89.0 apparently for #23631 and realized we hadn't bumped this in a while

if we prefer to be more conservative with msrv bumps (i.e. only bump if a dependency requires it or we see a really useful feature/lib function in newer versions) then i'm fine with leaving it and altering my PR above, but in the past we usually kept up to date with bumping our msrv

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 80.71%. Comparing base (0de74cc) to head (f2a7139).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23632 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.71% 80.71% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 1089 1089 Lines 368911 368911 Branches 368911 368911 ==========================================
- Hits 297783 297769 -14 - Misses 53373 53385 +12 - Partials 17755 17757 +2 

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[neilconway]

Personally I'm okay with bumping MSRV more aggressively, but I don't know if we have a policy on it.

[pepijnve]

On discord @Omega359 pointed to https://datafusion.apache.org/user-guide/introduction.html#rust-version-compatibility-policy. Since we're at Rust 1.97, bumping to 1.94 would be in line with the policy of supporting the last 4 stable releases.

[neilconway]

If that's the policy, I'm fine with landing this now -- let me know if anyone feels otherwise.

@Jefffrey Can you resolve the merge conflict when you get a chance?