| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, 43702(at)bugs(dot)debian(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution |
| Date: | 1999-08-31 07:04:26 |
| Message-ID: | 37CB7E7A.A65A45E0@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I have had a request to add multi-byte support to the Debian binary
> packages of PostgreSQL.
> Since I live in England, I have personally no need of this and therefore
> have little understanding of the implications.
> If I change the packages to use multi-byte support, (UNICODE (UTF-8) is
> suggested as the default), will there be any detrimental effects on the
> fairly large parts of the world that don't need it? Should I try to
> provide two different packages, one with and one without MB support?
Probably. The downside to having MB support is reduced performance and
perhaps functionality. If you don't need it, don't build it...
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Broytmann | 1999-08-31 08:36:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Implications of multi-byte support in a distribution |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-08-31 06:46:04 | Re: [HACKERS] ANSI SQL compliance |