CORE-16183 Ledger data model simplifications (part 1)

[nkovacsx]

Overview

This PR contains the AGREED suggestions from this page: https://r3-cev.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CB/pages/4578214028/UTXO+Ledger+Data+Model+Simplifications#Remove-created-field-from-utxo_transaction_component-table-Agreed.

These are:

• Merge utxo_transaction_status table into utxo_transaction (then delete the utxo_transaction_status table) and rename utxo_transaction_output table to utxo_visible_transaction_output
• Merge utxo_visible_transaction_state table into utxo_transaction_output (then delete the utxo_visible_transaction_state table)
• Removal of utxo_transaction_sources table
• Removal of utxo_transaction_cpk and utxo_cpk tables
• Remove created field from utxo_transaction_component table

Test plan

1. 5.0 -> 5.1
   The upgrade SQL file was generated using the Corda CLI tool with the latest plugin. The SQL generated then was executed in a live Postgres database. The existing transactions were moved according to the 5.1 schema accordingly.

2. 5.1 Postgres
   Started up a 5.1 instance with a fresh Postgres instance and schema creation ran successfully.

[corda-jenkins-ci02]

Jenkins build for PR 1270 build 11

Build Successful:
Jar artifact version produced by this PR: 5.1.0.30-alpha-1696856496444

[relyafi]

Some minor comments but broadly looks good, final approval should be deferred until corresponding corda-runtime-os changes are also ready for review and approved.

I think it might be worth clarifying the test scenarios in the test notes, what I'd like to see is:

• Able to deploy a "fresh" Postgres based Corda deployment
• Able to run up a "fresh" simulator deployment (or the combined worker) with HSQLDB. I'm assuming no upgrade concerns with HSQLDB as we'd always use a fresh deployment given its in-memory nature
• Able to deploy a Postgres based Corda deployment running 5.0, generate some transactions, and then upgrade to 5.1. Ideally we'd have an integration test for this in runtime-os (though not sure if our test framework is mature enough to do this yet)

[lankydan]

Changes generally look fine to me, left one comment on another comment though.

One other thing

These are:

Merge utxo_transaction_status table into utxo_transaction (then delete the utxo_transaction_status table)
Merge utxo_visible_transaction_state table into utxo_transaction_output (then delete the utxo_visible_transaction_state table)
Removal of utxo_transaction_sources table
Removal of utxo_transaction_cpk and utxo_cpk tables
Remove created field from utxo_transaction_component table
Rename utxo_transaction_output table to utxo_visible_transaction_output

Can we either specify these as steps or only say what the outcome is.

Mainly seeing "Merge utxo_visible_transaction_state table into utxo_transaction_output" and then "utxo_transaction_output table to utxo_visible_transaction_output" confused me when reading through the change.

If it was "Merge utxo_visible_transaction_state table into utxo_transaction_output and rename it to utxo_visible_transaction_output" it might be clearer. This is nit-picky though.

[blsemo]

LGTM