[Bugfix] (ROLLUP) fix the coredump when add rollup by link schema change

[Lchangliang]

Proposed changes

Issue Number: close #15593

Problem summary

example:

CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS sale (
                `user_id` LARGEINT NOT NULL COMMENT "用户id",
                `date` DATE NOT NULL COMMENT "数据灌入日期时间",
                `age` SMALLINT COMMENT "用户年龄",
                `sex` TINYINT COMMENT "用户性别",
                `city` VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT "beijing "COMMENT "用户所在城市",
                `last_visit_date` DATETIME DEFAULT "1970-01-01 00:00:00" COMMENT "用户最后一次访问时间",
                `last_update_date` DATETIME DEFAULT "1970-01-01 00:00:00" COMMENT "用户最后一次更新时间",
                `last_visit_date_not_null` DATETIME NOT NULL DEFAULT "1970-01-01 00:00:00" COMMENT "用户最后一次访问时间",
                `cost` BIGINT DEFAULT "0" COMMENT "用户总消费",
                `max_dwell_time` INT DEFAULT "0" COMMENT "用户最大停留时间",
                `min_dwell_time` INT DEFAULT "99999" COMMENT "用户最小停留时间")
            UNIQUE KEY(`user_id`, `date`, `age`, `sex`) DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(`user_id`)
            BUCKETS 1
            PROPERTIES ( "replication_num" = "1", "light_schema_change" = "true");

insert datas

ALTER TABLE sale ADD ROLLUP rollup(`user_id`,`date`,`age`, `sex`, `cost`);

select rollup
coredump

Because of the rollup has the same keys and the keys's order is same, BE will do linked schema change. The base tablet's segments will link to the new rollup tablet. But the unique id from the base tablet is starting from 0 and as the rollup tablet also. In this case, the unique id 4 in the base table is column 'city', but in the rollup tablet is 'cost'. It will decode the varcode page to bigint page so that be coredump. It needs to be rejected.

I think that if a rollup add by link schema change, it means this rollup is redundant. It brings no additional revenue and wastes storage space. So It needs to be rejected.

Checklist(Required)

1. Does it affect the original behavior:
   • Yes
   • No
   • I don't know
2. Has unit tests been added:
   • Yes
   • No
   • No Need
3. Has document been added or modified:
   • Yes
   • No
   • No Need
4. Does it need to update dependencies:
   • Yes
   • No
5. Are there any changes that cannot be rolled back:
   • Yes (If Yes, please explain WHY)
   • No

Further comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion at dev@doris.apache.org by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[hello-stephen]

TeamCity pipeline, clickbench performance test result:
the sum of best hot time: 35.36 seconds
load time: 499 seconds
storage size: 17122758211 Bytes
https://doris-community-test-1308700295.cos.ap-hongkong.myqcloud.com/tmp/20230112103853_clickbench_pr_78520.html

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[github-actions]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

[dataroaring]

LGTM

[github-actions]

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

[github-actions]

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

[yiguolei]

LGTM