> On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 03:20, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > In my understanding, our consensus was enabling multibyte support by
> > default for 7.3. Any objection?
>
> Is there currently some agreed plan for introducing standard
> NCHAR/NVARCHAR types.
I have such a kind of *personal* plan, maybe fo
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 03:20, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> In my understanding, our consensus was enabling multibyte support by
> default for 7.3. Any objection?
Is there currently some agreed plan for introducing standard
NCHAR/NVARCHAR types.
What does ISO/ANSI say about multybyteness of simple CHAR t
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
> See below.
Oh, okay, now I recall that thread. You
> > 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 combin
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> In my understanding, our consensus was enabling multibyte support by
> default for 7.3. Any objection?
It was my understanding (or if I was mistaken, then it is my suggestion)
that the build-time option would be removed altogether and certain
performance-critical places (i
In my understanding, our consensus was enabling multibyte support by
default for 7.3. Any objection?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
