On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> I think there's a good case for some functions implementing the
>> various
>> Unicode normalization functions, though.
>
> I have no objection to that so long as the code footprint is in line
> with the utility gain (i.e. not all that much). If we have to bring
> in
> ICU or something similar to make it happen, the cost/benefit ratio
> looks
> pretty bad.
I've no idea what it would require, but the mapping table must be
pretty substantial. Still, I'd love to have this functionality in the
database.
Best,
David
