feat(meta-client): add cache crate for databend-meta service

[drmingdrmer]

I hereby agree to the terms of the CLA available at: https://docs.databend.com/dev/policies/cla/

Summary

feat(meta-client): add cache crate for databend-meta service

Crate databend-common-meta-cache provide a process-wide in memory
cache for databend-meta service.
It stores a continous range of key values locally and watches the
updates on a remote databend-meta and continously apply new changes to
local store.

The cache may be obsolete if the connection to the datbend-meta service
is unstable. Although in the background it keep trying to re-connecting.

This cache requires at least databend-meta 1.2.677; if the server is
older the cache returns a Unsupported error when accessing it.

Usage:

let client = MetaGrpcClient::try_create(/*..*/);
let cache = Cache::new(
        client,
        "your/cache/key/space/in/meta/service",
        "your-app-name-for-logging",
).await;

let value = cache.try_get("key").await?;

Tests

• Unit Test
• Logic Test
• Benchmark Test
• No Test - Explain why

Type of change

• Other

Related Issues

---

This change is 

[BohuTANG]

Can we integrate this into the MetaClient? Like:

let client = MetaGrpcClient::try_create(/*..*/).with_cache("your/cache/key/space/in/meta/service","your-app-name-for-logging",);
let value = client.xx(...).await?; -- using the cache in the client internal function

[drmingdrmer]

Can we integrate this into the MetaClient? Like:

let client = MetaGrpcClient::try_create(/*..*/).with_cache("your/cache/key/space/in/meta/service","your-app-name-for-logging",);
let value = client.xx(...).await?; -- using the cache in the client internal function

I don't want to encourage such usage. While providing a transparent cache layer may seem convenient, it actually hides network layer errors and could significantly complicate troubleshooting.

[TCeason]

I see this pr and I think it's a cache impl inside meta. So we can merge this pr.

When we actually cache some kv with it, we can talk about the actual problem again, right?

[drmingdrmer]

I see this pr and I think it's a cache impl inside meta. So we can merge this pr.

When we actually cache some kv with it, we can talk about the actual problem again, right?

Yes. Then I'll just merge it.