On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> No, especially if it results in queries that used to work breaking,
>> which it well could. But I'm not sure where to go with it from there,
>> beyond throwing up my hands.
>
> Well, that's why there's been no movement on this since 2004 :-(. The
> amount of work needed for a better solution seems far out of proportion
> to the benefits.
We could extend the existing logic to handle multi-bytes characters
though, couldn't we? It's not going to fix all the problems but at
least it'll do something sane.
--
greg