ddl: fix recover table by JobID bug when JobID is set to 0 tidb-server panic (#46343)

[ti-chi-bot]

This is an automated cherry-pick of #46343

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #46296

Problem Summary:

The "RECOVER TABLE BY JOB 0":

1. parser will return no error, jobID set to 0 is allowed
2. when jobID is 0, function executeRecoverTable treat is as "Recover table tableName"，then call getRecoverTableByTableName, How ever Table is nil.

tidb/executor/ddl.go

Lines 396 to 400 in 8d0fdef

	if s.JobID != 0 {
	job, tblInfo, err = e.getRecoverTableByJobID(s, dom)
	} else {
	job, tblInfo, err = e.getRecoverTableByTableName(s.Table)
	}

What is changed and how it works?

sql1： RECOVER TABLE BY JOB 0
sql2： RECOVER TABLE tableName

The both case paser will set JobID to 0, so can't distinguish them by JobID.
Change it by Table info, if it is not nil, it is sql2, else sql1.
case Table is nil and JobID is 0 is impossible.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No code

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[jiyfhust]

/approve

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (release-7.5@0d8177f). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 100.0000%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             release-7.5     #48087   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage               ?   73.6771%           
================================================
  Files                  ?       1404           
  Lines                  ?     420444           
  Branches               ?          0           
================================================
  Hits                   ?     309771           
  Misses                 ?      91404           
  Partials               ?      19269           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	73.6771% <100.0000%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	53.9913% <0.0000%> (?)
parser	∅ <0.0000%> (?)
br	53.6649% <0.0000%> (?)

[Benjamin2037]

LGTM

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Benjamin2037, jiyfhust, tangenta

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Benjamin2037,tangenta]
• pkg/parser/OWNERS [tangenta]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-02-19 13:23:40.569680599 +0000 UTC m=+277109.317303711: ☑️ agreed by Benjamin2037.
• 2024-02-20 05:59:57.428576962 +0000 UTC m=+336886.176200074: ☑️ agreed by tangenta.

[Benjamin2037]

/retest

[Benjamin2037]

/retest

[wuhuizuo]

/hold
wait for merging of #51164

[wuhuizuo]

/unhold

[wuhuizuo]

flaky case:

https://do.pingcap.net/jenkins/blue/organizations/jenkins/pingcap%2Ftidb%2Frelease-7.5%2Fghpr_unit_test/detail/ghpr_unit_test/560/pipeline
https://do.pingcap.net/jenkins/blue/organizations/jenkins/pingcap%2Ftidb%2Frelease-7.5%2Fghpr_unit_test/detail/ghpr_unit_test/559/pipeline

[wuhuizuo]

/retest