release-22.1: sql: cluster setting for persisting gateway node ID

[maryliag]

Backport 1/1 commits from #88583.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

When persisting statement statistics, one of the columns is the gateway node id, but because it needs to be a unique value, users who have a large amount of data are creating a lot of rows on the system.statement_statistics table.
To help decrease the amount of rows, the new cluster setting sql.metrics.statement_details.gateway_node.enabled define if the value on that column should be the gateway node ID or 0. We still display the node ID on the statistics column.

Fixes #88484

Release note (sql change): New cluster setting
sql.metrics.statement_details.gateway_node.enabled that controls if the gateway node ID should be persisted to the system.statement_statistics table as is or as a 0, to decrease cardinality on the table. The node id is still available on the statistics column.

---

Release justification: low risk, high benefit change

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
• Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
• Patches should change as little code as possible.
• Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
• Patches should not add new functionality.
• Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.

If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.

• There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
• The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
• New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
• The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

• What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
• Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
• If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[j82w]

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @maryliag)