| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | sakaida(at)psn(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: client libpq multibyte support |
| Date: | 2000-05-05 14:34:23 |
| Message-ID: | 6323.957537263@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> For the Tom's comment of "the MULTIBYTE code is a good deal larger and
> slower": IMHO it's a price of i18n (I don't claim my implementation of
> MB is the most efficient one, though). Today almost any OS and
> applications are evolving to be "i18n ready."
True, and in fact most of the performance problem in the client-side
MULTIBYTE code comes from the fact that it's not designed-in, but tries
to be a minimally intrusive patch. I think we could make it go faster
if we accepted that it was standard functionality. So I'm not averse to
going in that direction in the long term ... but I do object to turning
on MULTIBYTE by default just a couple days before release. We don't
really know how robust the MULTIBYTE-client-and-non-MULTIBYTE-server
combination is, and so I'm afraid to make it the default configuration
with hardly any testing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-05 14:59:09 | Re: Why Not MySQL? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-05 14:27:29 | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |