advancer: fix the incorrect gc safepoint behaviours (#52835)

[ti-chi-bot]

This is an automated cherry-pick of #52835

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #52082

Problem Summary:

1. Advancer didn't handle GC response correct, if set the safepoint smaller(Normally it won't happen, because the ts from advancer always closed to the current time(RPO <= 5min)) than current service safepoint, it still get the response without error.
2. Set service safepoint to 0 won't delete the value.

What changed and how does it work?

1. handle the response with smaller ts request.
2. add new interface to remove service safepoint.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

Fix the issue that del task won't clean up service safepoint.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (release-8.1@21d2679). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             release-8.1     #56697   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage               ?   71.7729%           
================================================
  Files                  ?       1468           
  Lines                  ?     429666           
  Branches               ?          0           
================================================
  Hits                   ?     308384           
  Misses                 ?     100834           
  Partials               ?      20448           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	71.7729% <0.0000%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.9656% <0.0000%> (?)
parser	∅ <0.0000%> (?)
br	41.0542% <0.0000%> (?)

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: BornChanger, YuJuncen

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• br/OWNERS [BornChanger,YuJuncen]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-10-17 04:01:08.035679576 +0000 UTC m=+502865.184589408: ☑️ agreed by YuJuncen.
• 2024-12-11 08:24:03.554889554 +0000 UTC m=+426833.643692094: ☑️ agreed by BornChanger.

[3pointer]

/rebuild

[3pointer]

/retest

[BornChanger]

/retest

[BornChanger]

/retest