"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think we should stick with the existing naming convention. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Non-colliding? No; see above. > Otherwise, it'd be ludicrous to fail a table rename because > a sequence with the new name already exists... Why? We already rename the table's rowtype, ergo you can fail a table rename because there is a conflicting datatype name. I don't see anything much wrong with failing a table or column rename because there is a conflicting sequence name. The whole point here is to have a non-surprising mapping between the names of serial columns and the names of their associated sequences. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]