Added to TODO:
> o Have ALTER TABLE rename SERIAL sequences
Seems we at least need this. Doesn't dependency tracking make this
easy to do now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> 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
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
