Fix re-distributing previously distributed invalidation messages during logical decoding.

Fix re-distributing previously distributed invalidation messages during logical decoding.

Commit 4909b38af0 introduced logic to distribute invalidation messages
from catalog-modifying transactions to all concurrent in-progress
transactions. However, since each transaction distributes not only its
original invalidation messages but also previously distributed
messages to other transactions, this leads to an exponential increase
in allocation request size for invalidation messages, ultimately
causing memory allocation failure.

This commit fixes this issue by tracking distributed invalidation
messages separately per decoded transaction and not redistributing
these messages to other in-progress transactions. The maximum size of
distributed invalidation messages that one transaction can store is
limited to MAX_DISTR_INVAL_MSG_PER_TXN (8MB). Once the size of the
distributed invalidation messages exceeds this threshold, we
invalidate all caches in locations where distributed invalidation
messages need to be executed.

Back-patch to all supported versions where we introduced the fix by
commit 4909b38af0.

Note that this commit adds two new fields to ReorderBufferTXN to store
the distributed transactions. This change breaks ABI compatibility in
back branches, affecting third-party extensions that depend on the
size of the ReorderBufferTXN struct, though this scenario seems
unlikely.

Additionally, it adds a new flag to the txn_flags field of
ReorderBufferTXN to indicate distributed invalidation message
overflow. This should not affect existing implementations, as it is
unlikely that third-party extensions use unused bits in the txn_flags
field.

Bug: #18938 #18942
Author: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Duncan Sands <duncan.sands@deepbluecap.com>
Reported-by: John Hutchins <john.hutchins@wicourts.gov>
Reported-by: Laurence Parry <greenreaper@hotmail.com>
Reported-by: Max Madden <maxmmadden@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Braulio Fdo Gonzalez <brauliofg@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Hayato Kuroda <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/680bdaf6-f7d1-4536-b580-05c2760c67c6@deepbluecap.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18942-0ab1e5ae156613ad@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/18938-57c9a1c463b68ce0@postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAD1FGCT2sYrP_70RTuo56QTizyc+J3wJdtn2gtO3VttQFpdMZg@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CANO2=B=2BT1hSYCE=nuuTnVTnjidMg0+-FfnRnqM6kd23qoygg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 13