Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:04 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@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.
regards, tom lane
