[PATCH] Make LNT compatible with PostgreSQL

[Tobias Grosser]

On 30/07/2014 00:30, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
> Here are my thoughts on what we should do:

Hi Daniel,

thanks for your feedback.

> 1. Before doing anything substantial, I want to get Chris' patches to
> rerun tests with significant changes (~= a form of adaptive sampling)
> landed. I have high hopes for that approach in helping making results
> more reliable and actionable.

Adaptive sampling is a very neat idea.

Out of interest. How does a database change require these changes?  From 
my naive perspective, I would rather have a set of already running 
buildbots with some history to allow to understand the effectiveness of 
Chris' changes. Hence, having a stable database in place would be nice.

> 2. In the past, when bringing up new databases I have reimported some
> historical data using the JSON files that the server archives (as Chris
> noted). I could do that again here if useful.

Sure. We have the last 500 builds going back to July 16 for the 'clang 
-O3 builder'. That's 15 days history. Nothing huge, but just enough to 
get us history starting from the 3.5 branch.

> 3. I'm not sure exactly when I will have time to bring up a PostgreSQL
> instance on llvm.org <http://llvm.org>. I would really love to move to a
> PaaS solution like Heroku to make managing this kind of thing easier
> (and easier to collaborate on), but we might not yet have the
> organizational clout for that.

You seem very busy and Yi Kong has done a great job in moving LNT ahead 
the last months. Maybe he could help out with the installation work?

> 4. Last I looked, the llvm.org <http://llvm.org> instance mostly had
> polly related bots. It would be nice to start off with a more standard
> set of bots trying to cover the diversity of platforms, in the hopes of
> making the results more interesting to the larger community.

Right, it is important that we get wider test coverage. On the other 
side, one server is just badly named:

http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity

Those are five machines building 'clang -O3' on X86 without any Polly 
involved. So for X86 at least one configuration is rather strongly tested.

Cheers,
Tobias