[fix](function)make_set incorrect results because of implicit type conversion.

[Mryange]

What problem does this PR solve?

The following code can compile:

void foo(const ColumnInt64& bit_col) {}

void test() { int64_t a = 123; foo(a); }

This is because we have the following constructor: ColumnVector(const size_t n) : data(n) {}

The make_set function incorrectly uses this pattern, causing wrong results.

before

mysql> SELECT id, make_set(1, col2, 'default1', 'default2') FROM test_local;
+------+-------------------------------------------+
| id   | make_set(1, col2, 'default1', 'default2') |
+------+-------------------------------------------+
|    1 | default1,default2                         |
|    3 | default1,default2                         |
|    5 | default1,default2                         |
|    2 | default1,default2                         |
|    4 | default1,default2                         |
+------+-------------------------------------------+

now

mysql> SELECT id, make_set(1, col2, 'default1', 'default2') FROM test_local;
+------+-------------------------------------------+
| id   | make_set(1, col2, 'default1', 'default2') |
+------+-------------------------------------------+
|    2 | boundary_value                            |
|    4 | zero_value                                |
|    3 | negative_boundary                         |
|    5 | null_value                                |
|    1 | test_string                               |
+------+-------------------------------------------+

To prevent this from happening again, I made the constructor explicit.

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
    • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
    • Previous test can cover this change.
    • No code files have been changed.
    • Other reason

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?