refactor(meta): maintain snapshot of running actors instead of resolving it every time for barrier

[yezizp2012]

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

Resolve #8015 .

Some changes in this PR:

1. maintaining a snapshot of running actors in barrier state, it will be incrementally update according to the actor changes of each barrier.
2. drop table fragments directly before issuing a drop barrier, which is the main purpose of introducing this refactoring, so that we can easily support sql-backend.
3. some changes on the drop and reschedule command to expose actor changes for barrier manager.

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
• I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
• My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
• My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)

• My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

• My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

[BugenZhao]

Does this resolve #8015?

[yezizp2012]

Does this resolve #8015?

👍 Yes exactly.

[BugenZhao]

Rest LGTM!

Is it possible (and easy) to keep the original impl so that we can add a debug assertion to check if everything work well with the incremental maintenance?

[wenym1]

Rest LGTM! Thanks for the PR

[BugenZhao]

Is it possible (and easy) to keep the original impl so that we can add a debug assertion to check if everything work well with the incremental maintenance?

🥺

[yezizp2012]

Is it possible (and easy) to keep the original impl so that we can add a debug assertion to check if everything work well with the incremental maintenance?

🥺

Oh, I added the assertion check in function pre_apply and post_apply. Is this what you mean to keep? 🥵