Fix checksum validation for SQL implementation

[Shaddoll]

What changed?
Add a check for the SQL implementation of GetWorkflowExecution operation to exclude false positive checksum validation failure cases.

Why?
To make sure the checksum validation result is true, the data we read from GetWorkflowExecution operation are from a consistent view. In the NoSQL implementation, the operation is a single read, so the data is from a consistent view. However, in the SQL implementation, the operation is multiple reads from different table. If there is a concurrent update, the data we read isn't from a consistent view and the checksum validation could fail. Normally, we don't have concurrent updates with reads. But when the shard ownership changed, it might not be the case.

How did you test it?
unit tests

Potential risks

Release notes

Documentation Changes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5790 (1ffbfe7) into master (d43b582) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 95.45%.

❗ Current head 1ffbfe7 differs from pull request most recent head 1a507ab. Consider uploading reports for the commit 1a507ab to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

Files	Coverage Δ
common/persistence/data_manager_interfaces.go	98.38% <ø> (ø)
common/persistence/data_store_interfaces.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
common/persistence/serializer.go	76.20% <100.00%> (+0.92%)	⬆️
common/persistence/sql/sql_execution_store.go	86.79% <100.00%> (+1.63%)	⬆️
service/history/shard/context.go	30.54% <100.00%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
common/persistence/executionManager.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d43b582...1a507ab. Read the comment docs.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 018e538a-9212-4a38-a4bc-aa8f4e5a06ec

Details

• 24 of 26 (92.31%) changed or added relevant lines in 5 files are covered.
• 74 unchanged lines in 10 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.008%) to 64.923%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
common/persistence/persistence-tests/persistenceTestBase.go	0	2	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
common/task/weighted_round_robin_task_scheduler.go	2	89.05%
client/history/client.go	2	35.78%
service/history/handler/handler.go	2	49.59%
service/matching/taskListManager.go	2	79.7%
service/history/execution/mutable_state_util.go	2	78.48%
common/persistence/sql/sql_execution_store_util.go	3	84.82%
service/frontend/api/handler.go	4	62.11%
service/history/engine/engineimpl/historyEngine.go	9	68.3%
service/history/task/transfer_standby_task_executor.go	10	86.19%
service/history/execution/mutable_state_task_refresher.go	38	56.65%

Totals
Change from base Build 018e5375-7faa-4355-92c2-53b7ff622a40:	-0.008%
Covered Lines:	94770
Relevant Lines:	145972

---

💛 - Coveralls