Add engine primitive to handle query timeout

[GuptaManan100]

Description

As pointed out in #16624, the query timeout is not handled properly for the entire execution of the query. This PR fixes this issue. The approach is to introduce a new engine primitive that checks for the timeout and then runs the remainder of the execution as part of a go routine. If the execution takes longer than the timeout, the primitive returns an error.

For creating a plan that has the query-timeout specified on plan time, we are using the session setting of query timeout as well as part of the planning. This necessitates the need to add it to the plan cache key as well, since we don't want to use a plan with one query timeout even when the query timeout for the session changes.

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes Bug Report: Query timeout applies only on Route and not on the entire query execution #16624

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.87097% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.87%. Comparing base (fae7540) to head (0442b1c).
Report is 85 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
go/vt/vtgate/engine/timeout_handler.go	79.16%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             main   #16619    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   68.87%   68.87%            
========================================
  Files        1562     1563     +1     
  Lines      200624   200729   +105     
========================================
+ Hits       138179   138259    +80     
- Misses      62445    62470    +25     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[vitess-bot]

Hello! 👋

This Pull Request is now handled by arewefastyet. The current HEAD and future commits will be benchmarked.

You can find the performance comparison on the arewefastyet website.

[harshit-gangal]

I would suggest to benchmark the change as it is adding go routines for each run.

[harshit-gangal]

Hello! 👋

This Pull Request is now handled by arewefastyet. The current HEAD and future commits will be benchmarked.

You can find the performance comparison on the arewefastyet website.

This would not show up anything as query timeout needs to be set to use the new engine primitive

[GuptaManan100]

The original problem that was being solved by this PR has already been fixed by #16735 and verified in #16800