I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database
configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end.

Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually
`connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and
`spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After
2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing.

This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of
`name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a
less confusing name.

`connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie
ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's
models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to
`spec_name`, hence the major confusion.

Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and
connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that
`db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and
`connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while
the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the
fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the
`connection_specification_name` until #38190.

After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that
we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to
connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because
a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been
connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until
it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config
to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't
see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or
telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would
probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in
that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and
`connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.