PR cockroachdb#64023 made it so we use the backfill's read TS as the batch TS for
the AddSSTable operation. Simultaneously with that change, cockroachdb#63945 was
being worked on, which made it so that we use a fixed _write_ timestamp
for the keys that are backfilled. This write timestamp is the actual
minimum lower bound timestamp for the backfill operation, and the read
timstamp is allowed to change, so it makes more sense to use the write
timestamp for the AddSSTable operation. Looking at the diffs in the PRs
makes it seem pretty likely that this was just missed as part of a
trivial branch skew.

This commit does not cause any behavior change, since at the time of
writing, the read timestamp and write timestamp are always identical for
the backfill.

Release note: None

143270: kvserver: better obs in TestTxnReadWithinUncertaintyIntervalAfterRangeMerge r=tbg a=tbg

Closes #143260.

This is a complex test with a rare failure mode. Trace all of the relevant operations so that we can meaningfully engage with it.

Epic: none
Release note: none

143451: sql,backfill: avoid holding a protected timestamp during the backfill r=rafiss a=rafiss

### sql,rowexec: use WriteTS as timestamp for AddSSTable in backfill

PR #64023 made it so we use the backfill's read TS as the batch TS for
the AddSSTable operation. Simultaneously with that change, #63945 was
being worked on, which made it so that we use a fixed _write_ timestamp
for the keys that are backfilled. This write timestamp is the actual
minimum lower bound timestamp for the backfill operation, and the read
timstamp is allowed to change, so it makes more sense to use the write
timestamp for the AddSSTable operation. Looking at the diffs in the PRs
makes it seem pretty likely that this was just missed as part of a
trivial branch skew.

This commit does not cause any behavior change, since at the time of
writing, the read timestamp and write timestamp are always identical for
the backfill.

Release note: None

### sql,backfill: choose new read timestamp when backfill job is resumed

When #73861 got merged, we seem to have accidentally made it so the index
backfiller will never select a new read timestamp. That is contrary to
the goals of #63945, where we initially added the ability to advance the
read timestamp forward.

This mistake is why we were seeing behavior where a GC threshold error
would cause the backfill to retry infinitely (which in turn led us to treat
as a permanent error in #139203, which was something we never should have
done). We never noticed the bug because when CREATE INDEX was added to the
declarative schema changer in #92128, we turned off the declarative schema
changer in the test that would have caught this (i.e. TestIndexBackfillAfterGC).

This commit makes it so we choose a current timestamp as the read
timestamp when planning the backfill, and fixes up that test to show
that this works for index backfills in the declarative schema changer.

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug where a GC threshold error (which
appears as "batch timestamp must be after replica GC threshold ...")
could cause a schema change that backfills data to fail. Now, the error
will cause the backfill to be retried at a higher timestamp to avoid the
error.

### sql, backfill: use a current timestamp to scan each chunk of the source index

There's no need for the backfill to use a fixed read timestamp for the
entire job. Instead, each chunk of the original index that needs to be
scanned can use a current timestamp. This allows us to remove all the
logic for adding protected timestamps for the backfill.

Release note (performance improvement): Schema changes that require
data to be backfilled no longer hold a protected timestamp for the
entire duration of the backfill, which means there is less overhead
caused by MVCC garbage collection after the backfill completes.

### sql: stop setting readAsOf in index backfiller

As of the parent commit, this is unused by the index backfiller.

Release note: None

---

fixes #140629
informs #142339
informs #142117
informs #141773

Co-authored-by: Tobias Grieger <tobias.b.grieger@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rafi Shamim <rafi@cockroachlabs.com>

PR cockroachdb#64023 made it so we use the backfill's read TS as the batch TS for
the AddSSTable operation. Simultaneously with that change, cockroachdb#63945 was
being worked on, which made it so that we use a fixed _write_ timestamp
for the keys that are backfilled. This write timestamp is the actual
minimum lower bound timestamp for the backfill operation, and the read
timstamp is allowed to change, so it makes more sense to use the write
timestamp for the AddSSTable operation. Looking at the diffs in the PRs
makes it seem pretty likely that this was just missed as part of a
trivial branch skew.

This commit does not cause any behavior change, since at the time of
writing, the read timestamp and write timestamp are always identical for
the backfill.

Release note: None

PR cockroachdb#64023 made it so we use the backfill's read TS as the batch TS for
the AddSSTable operation. Simultaneously with that change, cockroachdb#63945 was
being worked on, which made it so that we use a fixed _write_ timestamp
for the keys that are backfilled. This write timestamp is the actual
minimum lower bound timestamp for the backfill operation, and the read
timstamp is allowed to change, so it makes more sense to use the write
timestamp for the AddSSTable operation. Looking at the diffs in the PRs
makes it seem pretty likely that this was just missed as part of a
trivial branch skew.

This commit does not cause any behavior change, since at the time of
writing, the read timestamp and write timestamp are always identical for
the backfill.

Release note: None

PR cockroachdb#64023 made it so we use the backfill's read TS as the batch TS for
the AddSSTable operation. Simultaneously with that change, cockroachdb#63945 was
being worked on, which made it so that we use a fixed _write_ timestamp
for the keys that are backfilled. This write timestamp is the actual
minimum lower bound timestamp for the backfill operation, and the read
timstamp is allowed to change, so it makes more sense to use the write
timestamp for the AddSSTable operation. Looking at the diffs in the PRs
makes it seem pretty likely that this was just missed as part of a
trivial branch skew.

This commit does not cause any behavior change, since at the time of
writing, the read timestamp and write timestamp are always identical for
the backfill.

Release note: None