> > 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.
Thank you for your challenge. I expect that a good result comes out.
--
Regard,
SAKAIDA Masaaki -- Osaka, Japan
