> True, and in fact most of the performance problem in the client-side
> MULTIBYTE code comes from the fact that it's not designed-in, but tries
> to be a minimally intrusive patch. I think we could make it go faster
> if we accepted that it was standard functionality. So I'm not averse to
> going in that direction in the long term ...
Glad to hear that.
> but I do object to turning
> on MULTIBYTE by default just a couple days before release. We don't
> really know how robust the MULTIBYTE-client-and-non-MULTIBYTE-server
> combination is, and so I'm afraid to make it the default configuration
> with hardly any testing.
Agreed.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
