Randomize name to avoid contention on 'idx_jobs_name'

[cedric-cordenier]

Postgres logs show this alot:

2023-10-19 10:03:06.584 UTC [1981] LOG:  process 1981 still waiting for ShareLock on transaction 22607 after 31705.576 ms
cl_pg  | 2023-10-19 10:03:06.584 UTC [1981] DETAIL:  Process holding the lock: 1951. Wait queue: 1954, 1981.
cl_pg  | 2023-10-19 10:03:06.584 UTC [1981] CONTEXT:  while inserting index tuple (3,28) in relation "idx_jobs_name"
cl_pg  | 2023-10-19 10:03:06.584 UTC [1981] STATEMENT:  INSERT INTO jobs (pipeline_spec_id, name, schema_version, type, max_task_duration, ocr_oracle_spec_id, ocr2_oracle_spec_id, direct_request_spec_id, flux_monitor_spec_id,
cl_pg  | 					keeper_spec_id, cron_spec_id, vrf_spec_id, webhook_spec_id, blockhash_store_spec_id, bootstrap_spec_id, block_header_feeder_spec_id, gateway_spec_id, 
cl_pg  | 	                legacy_gas_station_server_spec_id, legacy_gas_station_sidecar_spec_id, external_job_id, gas_limit, forwarding_allowed, created_at)
cl_pg  | 			VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9,
cl_pg  | 					$10, $11, $12, $13, $14, $15, $16, $17, 
cl_pg  | 			        $18, $19, $20, $21, $22, NOW())
cl_pg  | 			RETURNING *;

suggesting that we aren't randomizing the job.name properly.

[github-actions]

I see that you haven't updated any CHANGELOG files. Would it make sense to do so?

[github-actions]

I see that you haven't updated any README files. Would it make sense to do so?

[cl-sonarqube-production]

SonarQube Quality Gate

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[jmank88]

Would it help us as humans to use the same UUID value for both fields?