release-22.1: kvserver: allow voter demoting to get a lease, in case there's an incoming voter

[nvanbenschoten]

Backport 1/1 commits from #83686.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

Fixes #83687.

It is possible that we've entered a joint config where the leaseholder is being
replaced with an incoming voter. We try to transfer the lease away, but this fails.
In this case, we need the demoted voter to re-aquire the lease, as it might be an epoch
based lease, that doesn't expire. Otherwise we might be stuck without anyone else getting
the lease (the original leaseholder will be in the PROSCRIBED state, repeatedly trying to
re-aquire the lease, but will fail since its a VOTER_DEMOTING_LEARNER).

Release note (bug fix): Fixes a critical bug (#83687) introduced in 22.1.0 where
failure to transfer a lease in the joint config may result in range unavailability. The fix
allows the original leaseholder to re-aquire the lease so that lease transfer can be retried.

Release justification: resolves rare range unavailability.

[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