release-22.2: colexec: protect columnarizer when closing not started input

[blathers-crl]

Backport 1/1 commits from #91446 on behalf of @yuzefovich.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

This commit makes sure that the columnarizer calls InternalClose only if it has been initialized. Previously, if Columnarizer.Init wasn't performed (most likely due to a panic in Init of another operator), the columnarizer's input would not be started, so when InternalClose called input.ConsumerClosed, that could lead to a nil pointer panic since input.Ctx would be nil if the input tried to do some logging (some processors do that). We now protect against this by short-circuiting InternalClose call altogether, similar to what we do in Columnarizer.DrainMeta. This makes it so that the columnarizer satisfies Closer.Close contract properly.

Fixes: #84902.

Release note: None

---

Release justification: bug fix.

[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]

This can be flaky in tests, will implement a different solution.