Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com> writes:
> Should we start thinking about ICU ?
Isn't it still true that ICU fails to meet our minimum requirements?
That would include (a) working with the full Unicode character range
(not only UTF16) and (b) working with non-Unicode encodings. No doubt
we could deal with (b) by inserting a conversion, but that would take
a lot of shine off the performance numbers you mention.
I'm also not exactly convinced by your implicit assumption that ICU is
bug-free.
regards, tom lane