advancer: fix the incorrect gc safepoint behaviours

[3pointer]

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.

[ti-chi-bot]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[tiprow]

Hi @3pointer. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 57.1790%. Comparing base (4354682) to head (dc5cc22).
Report is 1318 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #52835         +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage   72.3201%   57.1790%   -15.1412%     
=================================================
  Files          1474       1595        +121     
  Lines        427611     608914     +181303     
=================================================
+ Hits         309249     348171      +38922     
- Misses        99057     237223     +138166     
- Partials      19305      23520       +4215     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	38.8385% <50.0000%> (?)
unit	71.9058% <0.0000%> (+0.7179%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	53.9957% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	61.8614% <50.0000%> (+20.7227%)	⬆️

[YuJuncen]

rest lgtm

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-04-23 09:44:56.480819679 +0000 UTC m=+80653.220722625: ☑️ agreed by YuJuncen.
• 2024-04-24 05:13:21.013519069 +0000 UTC m=+150757.753421981: ☑️ agreed by Leavrth.

[hawkingrei]

/retest

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Leavrth, 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 [Leavrth,YuJuncen]

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

[hawkingrei]

/ok-to-test

[3pointer]

/test check-dev2

[tiprow]

@3pointer: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

• /test fast_test_tiprow
• /test tidb_parser_test

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test check-dev2

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[hawkingrei]

/retest

[YuJuncen]

/run-cherry-picker

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.1: #56697.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #56698.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #56699.