release-23.1: sql: make transaction_rows_read_err prevent large scans

[rytaft]

Backport 1/1 commits from #104290.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

Prior to this commit, setting transaction_rows_read_err to a non-zero value would cause a transaction to fail as soon as a statement caused the total number of rows read to exceed transaction_rows_read_err. However, it was possible that each statement could read many more than transaction_rows_read_err rows. This commit adds logic so that a single scan never reads more than transaction_rows_read_err+1 rows if transaction_rows_read_err is set.

Informs #70473

Release note (performance improvement): If transaction_rows_read_err is set to a non-zero value, we now ensure that any single scan never reads more than transaction_rows_read_err+1 rows. This prevents transactions that would error due to the transaction_rows_read_err setting from causing a large performance overhead due to large scans.

---

Release justification: low-risk fix to reduce the likelihood of OOMs for customers

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
• 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 13 of 13 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @michae2)