Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere?

On 26.04.24 22:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:04 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>> Not sure that I would bother with a second one. But, well, why not if
>>> people want to rename it, as long as you keep compatibility.
>
>> I vote for just standardizing on XLOG_CONTROL_FILE. That name seems
>> sufficiently intuitive to me, and I'd rather have one identifier for
>> this than two. It's simpler that way.
>
> +1. Back when we did the great xlog-to-wal renaming, we explicitly
> agreed that we wouldn't change internal symbols referring to xlog.
> It might or might not be appropriate to revisit that decision,
> but I sure don't want to do it piecemeal, one symbol at a time.
>
> Also, if we did rename this one, the logical choice would be
> WAL_CONTROL_FILE not PG_CONTROL_FILE.

My reasoning was mainly that I don't see pg_control as controlling just
the WAL. But I don't feel strongly about instigating a great renaming
here or something.