> Ok, now I see that the index you added is subtly different from the one proposed. I’ve edited the original script and added a comment that points this out clearly. That’s my fault, I should have done that in the first place. > not cured by simply improving an error message. An error message like “Name collision in suggested index. Index with name t_idx_00012959 already exists.” should be sufficient, if taking existing indices into account for the name generation proves to be overly complicated.