Drifts report gives this for old wikis:
"job job_cmd field-size-mismatch": { "s1": [ "db1083:enwiki", "db1084:enwiki", "db1169:enwiki", "db1118:enwiki", "db1163:enwiki", "db1106:enwiki", "db1164:enwiki", "db1119:enwiki", "db1135:enwiki" ], "s2": [ "db1122:svwiki", "db1129:svwiki", "db1076:svwiki", "db1074:svwiki" ], "s3": [ "db1123:aswikibooks", "db1166:aswikibooks", "db1157:aswikibooks", "db1175:aswikibooks", "db1112:aswikibooks" ], "s6": [ "db1131:ruwiki", "db1168:ruwiki", "db1085:ruwiki", "db1173:ruwiki" ], "s7": [ "db1086:cawiki", "db1174:cawiki", "db1136:cawiki", "db1079:cawiki" ] },
In production it's varbinary(255):
wikiadmin@10.64.16.186(enwiki)> desc job; +---------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +---------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | job_cmd | varbinary(255) | NO | MUL | | |
While in the code it's varbinary(60). It looks like in rMWf38344aba8 (2007) @tstarling has changed the size of the field from 255 to 60 "to prevent key length overflow" (I don't understand the details and couldn't figure it out from the commit message).
Given that the table is empty, we can just fix it to 60 I assume.
Progress
- s1
- eqiad
- codfw
- s2
- eqiad
- codfw
- s3
- eqiad
- codfw T278621#7199015
- s4
- eqiad
- codfw
- s5
- eqiad
- codfw
- s6
- eqiad
- codfw
- s7
- eqiad
- codfw
- s8
- eqiad
- codfw
- labswiki
- labtestwiki