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" <[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 > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
