release-21.2: sql: clean up large row errors and events

[michae2]

Backport 1/1 commits from #70102.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

Addresses: #67400, #69477

Remove ViolatesMaxRowSizeErr from CommonLargeRowDetails, as was done
for CommonTxnRowsLimitDetails in #69945.

Also remove the SafeDetails methods from CommonLargeRowDetails,
txnRowsReadLimitErr, and txnRowsWrittenLimitErr, as I don't think we
need them.

Release justification: low-risk update to new functionality.

Release note: None (there was no release between the introduction of the
LargeRow and LargeRowInternal events and this commit).

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues.
• Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
• Patches should change as little code as possible.
• Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
• Patches should not add new functionality.
• Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.

If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.

• There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
• The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
• New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
• The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

• What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
• Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
• If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[yuzefovich]

Reviewed 8 of 8 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @knz)

[yuzefovich]

@knz @rytaft do you think it is justifiable to treat #69477 as a beta release-blocker and, as a result, to merge this? I'm leaning towards treating #69477 as a GA-blocker, so I'd merge this once beta is out.

[knz]

agreed with your analysis

[rytaft]

Agree, seems like GA-blocker. In which case it can wait till we get approval to merge on Monday.

[rytaft]

You can go ahead and merge this

Reviewed 8 of 8 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @michae2)

[michae2]

TFTRs! Merging.