fix: Limit index size#6494
Conversation
|
There are actually 3 indexes that are too small, this only addresses one of them. And the DB doesn't actually make use of mb4 until we look into this PR: #6409 Until then, it's mb3 data stuffed into mb4-capable tables... |
|
And 249 is too big, it needs to be 191, for reasons explained over on #6409 also. |
|
I clearly worry too much... I am also concerned that the string 'utf8' != the string 'utf8mb4'... There are several places throughout our code - still old 2.0 code that supports ISO-8859-1 - where the logic treats the contents as EITHER utf8 OR ISO-8859-1... I.e., a utf8mb4 DB may actually get treated as a latin1 DB, because it's not 'utf8'. Hence the importance of ripping out all the old "otherwise its ISO-8859-1" logic. |
|
One last change needed - When we change the DB we also add a corrective step to the upgrader. In this instance, dropping the old index & adding the new one. This allows the upgrader to be rerun to fix issues, bring the DB into conformity. |
Fixes #6163