Re: multibyte support by default

> > In my understanding, our consensus was enabling multibyte support by
> > default for 7.3. Any objection?
>
> Uh, was it? I don't recall that. Do we have any numbers on the
> performance overhead?
>
> regards, tom lane

See below.

Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unicode combining characters
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
cc: ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, phede-ml(at)islande(dot)org,
pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:05:16 -0400
Comments: In-reply-to Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> message dated "Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:16:42 +0900"

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> To accomplish this, I moved MatchText etc. to a separate file and now
> like.c includes it *twice* (similar technique used in regexec()). This
> makes like.o a little bit larger, but I believe this is worth for the
> optimization.

That sounds great.

What's your feeling now about the original question: whether to enable
multibyte by default now, or not? I'm still thinking that Peter's
counsel is the wisest: plan to do it in 7.3, not today. But this fix
seems to eliminate the only hard reason we have not to do it today ...

regards, tom lane