> I think we should stick with the existing naming convention.  The only
> actual problem that's been pointed out here is that an ALTER TABLE
> (or COLUMN) RENAME on a serial column doesn't update the sequence name
> to match.  Seems to me we could fix that with less effort than any of
> these solutions would take, and it wouldn't break existing applications.

Non-colliding?  Otherwise, it'd be ludicrous to fail a table rename because
a sequence with the new name already exists...


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to