release-22.2: util: avoid allocations when escaping multibyte characters

[blathers-crl]

Backport 1/1 commits from #88671 on behalf of @HonoreDB.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

EncodeEscapedChar (which is called in EncodeSQLStringWithFlags) is pretty optimized, but for escaping a multibyte character it was using fmt.FPrintf, which means every multibyte character ended up on the heap due to golang/go#8618. This had a noticeable impact in changefeed benchmarking.

This commit just hand-compiles the two formatting strings that were being used into reasonably efficient go, eliminating the allocs.

Benchmark encoding the first 10000 runes shows a 4x speedup:

Before: BenchmarkEncodeNonASCIISQLString-16 944 1216130 ns/op
After: BenchmarkEncodeNonASCIISQLString-16 3468 300777 ns/op

Release note: None

---

Release justification: Low-impact backwards-compatible performance tweak.

[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 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @HonoreDB and @miretskiy)