[Fix](recycler) Delete again to double check when recycle tablet failed by some bugs

[Yukang-Lian]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #46798

Problem Summary:

Background:

1. In PR [fix](recycler) Fix premature exit recycling when there is an invalid storage vault #46798, we modified the way to recycle tablets because if there is a vault that fails to initialize, the original way of recycling tablets would directly return -1 when encountering a failed vault due to not finding an accessor, resulting in an inability to recycle normally. PR [fix](recycler) Fix premature exit recycling when there is an invalid storage vault #46798 changed this to traverse rowsets and obtain accessors based on resource IDs. Compared to the previous method of directly returning -1 and not recycling anything, this approach can recycle as many rowsets as possible as long as the vault is normal.

2. The aforementioned PR modified the way of recycling tablets. Due to historical reasons, [0-1] rowsetPB does not have a resource ID. Since we assumed that all rowsetPBs have a resource ID, once there is no resource ID, it would return -1, causing the recycling to fail. This [0-1] recycling failure issue was fixed in PR [Fix](recycler) Fix recycler fail when dealing with rowset [0-1] #47324.

3. The problem addressed by the current PR occurred in the recycler pipeline. The specific phenomenon was that a schema change failed and was aborted, and then the recycler executed the recycling, only to find that the meta was deleted but the rowset object was not.

4. This is because before this PR, if recycle tmp rowset found that the schema of a tablet was missing, it would directly skip recycling the object and only recycle the meta. This method was fine before PR [fix](recycler) Fix premature exit recycling when there is an invalid storage vault #46798 because recycle tablet would directly delete the tablet folder on the object, and by the time it got to recycle tmp rowset, only recycling the meta was enough. However, after PR [fix](recycler) Fix premature exit recycling when there is an invalid storage vault #46798, if a tablet only has [0-1] rowsets, and an import fails, then [2-2] will become a tmp rowset. When recycle tablet recycles, it finds only [0-1], so it skips recycling the tablet folder object and only recycles the meta. When recycle tmp rowset, it finds that the tablet schema meta of the tmp rowset is missing, so it thinks [2-2] has been deleted by recycle tablet when it directly deletes the folder, so recycle tmp rowset only deletes the meta.

5. This ultimately led to the deletion of the meta but not the rowset object.

Solution:

This PR modifies the logic of recycle tmp rowset. Regardless of whether the schema meta of the tablet of this rowset exists, it is necessary to recycle the object file of this rowset, which can ensure that all objects can be recycled. In addition, resource IDs will be added to [0-1] during table creation in the future to ensure that recycle tablet can also delete normally. Once [0-1] has a resource ID, both recycle tablet and recycle tmp rowset will delete the object data, providing two layers of protection.

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
    • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
    • Previous test can cover this change.
    • No code files have been changed.
    • Other reason

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

[Yukang-Lian]

run buildall

[Yukang-Lian]

run buildall

[Yukang-Lian]

run buildall

[github-actions]

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

[github-actions]

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

[Hastyshell]

LGTM