migrate:create rename prompt doesn’t indicate up vs down diff (confusing; easy to choose wrong)

[reeucq]

Describe the Bug

When running payload migrate:create, the rename prompt doesn’t say whether it’s for the up migration or the down migration. This is confusing because the prompt shows “create
table” for the old table name, which looks wrong if you’re thinking in the forward direction. It’s easy to pick the wrong option and end up with a down migration that
recreates an empty table (data loss on rollback).

  Is posts_blocks_hero table created or renamed from another table?
  ❯ + posts_blocks_hero                             create table
    ~ posts_blocks_post_hero › posts_blocks_hero    rename table
    ~ _posts_v_blocks_post_hero › posts_blocks_hero rename table
    ~ popular_posts › posts_blocks_hero             rename table
    ~ popular_posts_rels › posts_blocks_hero        rename table

Additional context

Payload generates both up and down SQL by calling Drizzle’s migration generator twice (forward and reverse), but the prompt doesn’t indicate direction:
https://unpkg.com/@payloadcms/drizzle@3.59.1/dist/utilities/buildCreateMigration.js

Link to the code that reproduces this issue

https://unpkg.com/@payloadcms/drizzle@3.59.1/dist/utilities/buildCreateMigration.js

Reproduction Steps

To Reproduce

1. Have a collection using a blocks field with a block slug hero.
2. Replace it with a new block slug post-hero (new block component), keeping existing data.
3. Run PAYLOAD_CONFIG_PATH=src/payload.config.ts npx payload migrate:create.
4. Observe the rename prompt above (it looks like it’s asking to create the old table).

Expected behavior

The prompt should clearly indicate whether it’s resolving the up or down migration, or label it as “reverse diff (down)” so users pick the rename option intentionally.
Alternatively, only prompt for renames for the up migration and derive the down renames automatically.

Actual behavior

The prompt is unlabeled, and the options include unrelated tables; it looks like the old table is being created even though the forward migration is a rename. This led to
confusion and wasted time.

Which area(s) are affected?

db: postgres

Environment Info

Binaries:
  Node: 22.19.0
  npm: 11.1.0
  Yarn: N/A
  pnpm: N/A
Relevant Packages:
  payload: 3.59.1
  next: 15.5.9
  @payloadcms/db-postgres: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/drizzle: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/email-nodemailer: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/graphql: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/next/utilities: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/payload-cloud: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/plugin-form-builder: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/plugin-import-export: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/plugin-redirects: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/richtext-lexical: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/translations: 3.59.1
  @payloadcms/ui/shared: 3.59.1
  react: 19.2.3
  react-dom: 19.2.3
Operating System:
  Platform: darwin
  Arch: arm64
  Version: Darwin Kernel Version 25.2.0: Tue Nov 18 21:09:55 PST 2025; root:xnu-12377.61.12~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T8103
  Available memory (MB): 8192
  Available CPU cores: 8

[github-actions]

Please add a reproduction in order for us to be able to investigate.

Depending on the quality of reproduction steps, this issue may be closed if no reproduction is provided.

Why was this issue marked with the invalid-reproduction label?

To be able to investigate, we need access to a reproduction to identify what triggered the issue. We prefer a link to a public GitHub repository created with create-payload-app@latest -t blank or a forked/branched version of this repository with tests added (more info in the reproduction-guide).

To make sure the issue is resolved as quickly as possible, please make sure that the reproduction is as minimal as possible. This means that you should remove unnecessary code, files, and dependencies that do not contribute to the issue. Ensure your reproduction does not depend on secrets, 3rd party registries, private dependencies, or any other data that cannot be made public. Avoid a reproduction including a whole monorepo (unless relevant to the issue). The easier it is to reproduce the issue, the quicker we can help.

Please test your reproduction against the latest version of Payload to make sure your issue has not already been fixed.

I added a link, why was it still marked?

Ensure the link is pointing to a codebase that is accessible (e.g. not a private repository). "example.com", "n/a", "will add later", etc. are not acceptable links -- we need to see a public codebase. See the above section for accepted links.

Useful Resources

• Reproduction Guide
• Contributing to Payload