[BugFix]If the OP_DROP_TABLE_V2 event is lost, it will cause a null pointer error to be reported when processing the OP_ADD_PARTITION_V2 event.

[zhangheihei]

Why I'm doing:

1. [BugFix]The OP_DROP_TABLE_V2 event is not triggered when an error is reported for dropping a materialized view. #53951 result OP_DROP_TABLE_V2 lost, but nameToTable/idToTable is clear,so can create a materialized view with the same name. For examplt, old mv tableId is 100001, new tableId is 100002,mv name is test.dws_ofo_mv4.
2. OP_CREATE_TABLE_V2 event will not take effect because OP_DROP_TABLE_V2 is lost, so checkpoint thread/follwer fe remains test.dws_ofo_mv4-100001.
3. The object of refresh is test.dws_ofo_mv4-100002, so the null pointer is encountered in the OP_ADD_PARTITION_V2 event.

What I'm doing:

Fixes #53955

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
• This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

• I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
  • 3.4
  • 3.3
  • 3.2
  • 3.1
  • 3.0

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
7 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

[Java-Extensions Incremental Coverage Report]

✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

[github-actions]

[FE Incremental Coverage Report]

❌ fail : 1 / 4 (25.00%)

file detail

	path	covered_line	new_line	coverage	not_covered_line_detail
🔵	com/starrocks/server/LocalMetastore.java	1	4	25.00%	[1940, 1943, 1944]

[github-actions]

[BE Incremental Coverage Report]

✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

[gengjun-git]

It's not reasonable to remove the original table if create failed.
As you said
In replay create table, there must not be a table with the same name, unless there is a bug.
We should fix the bug that causes the duplicate table names instead of ignoring it here.

[zhangheihei]

But after an error occurs, there needs to be a defense to recover the FE.