Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere?

On 26.04.24 22:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:04 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.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.