storage: check for replicated locks in CheckSSTConflicts

[nvanbenschoten]

Informs #111984.
Informs #111893.
Informs #111530.

This commit changes storage.CheckSSTConflicts to also check for replicated locks, in addition to checking for intents. This is necessary to prevent AddSSTable from ingesting key-values pairs below replicated locks, which could violate the isolation expected from these locks if an ingested key-value is below the commit timestamp of the lock holder. This was caught in kvnemesis by the validation logic recently introduced in 7ff1c79.

The change alters the semantics of CheckSSTConflicts slightly for intents. It now detects conflicts with any intents in the AddSSTable's key span, instead of just those on overlapping keys. I think this is ok, as the checkConflicts = false path in EvalAddSSTable already had this behavior. This is reflected in the changes to cmd_add_sstable_test.go, where three cases are no longer inconsistent with blind writes. I also don't think this is a performance concern (like the comment that's being deleted was suggesting) because we now have the separated lock table. In fact, this change allows us to avoid using an intentInterleavingIter, so if anything, it may provide a small performance win.

Release note: None

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[erikgrinaker]

Thanks, appreciate the simplification.

[arulajmani]

Reviewed 2 of 3 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @dt, @nvanbenschoten, and @sumeerbhola)

---

pkg/storage/sst_test.go line 44 at r1 (raw file):

	testcases := []struct {
		maxLockConflicts int64
		expectIntents    []string

nit: s/expectIntents/expectLockConflicts/s while we're here?

[nvanbenschoten]

TFTRs!

bors r+

Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (and 1 stale) (waiting on @arulajmani, @dt, and @sumeerbhola)

---

pkg/storage/sst_test.go line 44 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, arulajmani (Arul Ajmani) wrote…

nit: s/expectIntents/expectLockConflicts/s while we're here?

Done.

[craig]

Build succeeded:

• Bazel Essential CI (Cockroach)

[blathers-crl]

Encountered an error creating backports. Some common things that can go wrong:

1. The backport branch might have already existed.
2. There was a merge conflict.
3. The backport branch contained merge commits.

You might need to create your backport manually using the backport tool.

---

error creating merge commit from ff633ba to blathers/backport-release-23.2-113120: POST https://api.github.com/repos/cockroachdb/cockroach/merges: 409 Merge conflict []

you may need to manually resolve merge conflicts with the backport tool.

Backport to branch 23.2.x failed. See errors above.

---

_{🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf.}