kv: disable use of shared locks in conjunction with skip locked

[arulajmani]

We currently don't support the use of shared locks and the skip locked wait policy together. Until this limitation is lifted, we should return unimplemented errors instead of the wrong result.

Informs #110743

Release note: None

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[nvanbenschoten]

after the test and lint failures are addressed.

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @michae2)

[nvanbenschoten]

Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @arulajmani and @michae2)

---

pkg/kv/kvserver/batcheval/cmd_scan.go line 152 at r1 (raw file):

		return MarkSkipLockedUnsupportedError(errors.UnimplementedError(
			errors.IssueLink{IssueURL: build.MakeIssueURL(110743)},
			"shared locks are incompatible with the skip locked wait policy",

Actually, is "incompatible" the right word? It sounds a final to me, as opposed to a temporary unsupported state.

[nvanbenschoten]

Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @arulajmani and @michae2)

---

pkg/kv/kvserver/batcheval/cmd_scan.go line 152 at r1 (raw file):

		return MarkSkipLockedUnsupportedError(errors.UnimplementedError(
			errors.IssueLink{IssueURL: build.MakeIssueURL(110743)},
			"shared locks are incompatible with the skip locked wait policy",

Actually, is "incompatible" the right word? It sounds a final to me, as opposed to a temporary unsupported state.

[arulajmani]

TFTR!

bors r=nvanbenschoten

Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (and 1 stale) (waiting on @michae2 and @nvanbenschoten)

---

pkg/kv/kvserver/batcheval/cmd_scan.go line 152 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, nvanbenschoten (Nathan VanBenschoten) wrote…

Actually, is "incompatible" the right word? It sounds a final to me, as opposed to a temporary unsupported state.

I clarified it to say "currently unsupported".

[craig]

Build failed:

• Bazel Essential CI (Cockroach)

[arulajmani]

bors r=nvanbenschoten

[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 459fba0 to blathers/backport-release-23.2-116446: 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.

---

error creating merge commit from 459fba0 to blathers/backport-release-23.2.0-rc-116446: 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 23.2.0-rc failed. See errors above.

---

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