RE: User defined data types in Logical Replication

Hi Petr Jelineks, Sawada-san

> I think the changes make sense in terms of how it all works now.
>
> That said I don't think the renaming idea is a good one, the naming was
> chosen to be future proof because eventually we'll need to map types to
> local oid (and possibly more) where the local info is cached so that we
> can interpret binary representation of replicated data (which we'll add
> at some point since it's big performance boost).
>
> So I am afraid that if we do the rename of typmap to remotetype in this
> patch it will a) make backports of fixes in the related code harder, b)
> force us to rename it back again in the future.

Thanks for your comment.

> I'd keep your general approach but keep using typmap naming.

I update the patch as Petr Jelineks mention, keep using typmap naming.

---
Thanks and best regards,
Dang Minh Huong
NEC Solution Innovators, Ltd.
http://www.nec-solutioninnovators.co.jp/en/