"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
