"Tomi NA" <hefest@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Basically, it comes down to three possibilities, doesn't it: > 1.) use an existing library > 2.) write a pgsql specific implementation > 3.) forget about it and tend to other issues > Personally, I don't really care if it's 1) or 2): I'm just afraid it's > going to be 3). > Is this a licencing issue (with regard to ICU beeing under the IBM > public licence)? Licensing is a concern --- IBM's appears to be not quite BSD enough. Size and portability of the library are concerns. Performance is a concern. Whether the patch makes the library required or optional is a concern (if required, the portability issue becomes a whole lot more urgent). Loss of existing functionality is a concern --- for instance, if the patch is such that UTF8 becomes the only supported server encoding, it'll probably be rejected forthwith. > A plugin architecture (to get rid of licencing headaches) issue? AFAIK making it a "plugin" won't alleviate anyone's licensing worries. Certainly that's not going to answer if the library is GPL. > To be perfectly honest, I've had to tackle so many problems with > encodings during the years I'd make it punishable by law to use > anything *but* UTF...but I'm not president of the Galaxy yet, Zaphod > is. (-: Well, the Japanese think that UTF8 is not the solution to all their worries, so they won't be happy with a UTF8-only solution. Likewise, those of us who only need single-byte character sets won't be very happy with being forced to accept multi-byte processing overhead. regards, tom lane
