Re: should crash recovery ignore checkpoint_flush_after ?

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 3:08 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> As I understand, the first thing that happens syncing every file in the data
> dir, like in initdb --sync.  These instances were both 5+TB on zfs, with
> compression, so that's slow, but tolerable, and at least understandable, and
> with visible progress in ps.
>
> The 2nd stage replays WAL.  strace show's it's occasionally running
> sync_file_range, and I think recovery might've been several times faster if
> we'd just dumped the data at the OS ASAP, fsync once per file.  In fact, I've
> just kill -9 the recovery process and edited the config to disable this lest it
> spend all night in recovery.

Does sync_file_range() even do anything for non-mmap'd files on ZFS?
Non-mmap'd ZFS data is not in the Linux page cache, and I think
sync_file_range() works at that level.  At a guess, there'd need to be
a new VFS file_operation so that ZFS could get a callback to handle
data in its ARC.