feat(query): support direct the spill data to a different bucket

[forsaken628]

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

Summary

• fixes: feat: add storage.spill bucket #17142
• fixes: Implement spill fallback logic during runtime #17143

Tests

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

Type of change

• Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking Change (fix or feature that could cause existing functionality not to work as expected)
• Documentation Update
• Refactoring
• Performance Improvement
• Other (please describe):

---

This change is 

[Xuanwo]

We are modifying as much code as we are adding with spill.storage, so why not use spill.storage instead? Adding a spill_bucket doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

It’s also difficult to document for users. For instance, there is no bucket concept in azblob. We could reuse all the documents we have written for storage instead of explaining what spill_bucket is and how it interacts with other options in storage.

[forsaken628]

databend/src/query/config/src/config.rs

Lines 239 to 253 in 7ec5a8d

	/// Storage config group.
	///
	/// # TODO(xuanwo)
	///
	/// In the future, we will use the following storage config layout:
	///
	/// ```toml
	/// [storage]
	///
	/// [storage.data]
	/// type = "s3"
	///
	/// [storage.temporary]
	/// type = "s3"
	/// ```

This is a better layout, but there's no time to refactor it.

[sundy-li]

We need a test to cover that spill could work out with other storage params.

Maybe add other test bucket like tests/suites/1_stateful/00_stage/00_0009_remove_internal_stage.sh