[Subtask]: Modify DefaultTableService to be compatible with master-slave mode.

[wardlican]

Why are the changes needed?

In DefaultTable Service, it is compatible with master-slave mode. In master-slave mode, it is necessary to load tables from catalog, determine the addition and deletion of tables, complete the allocation of tables to bucketId, and the logic of ams nodes loading the tables they are responsible for based on bucketId.

Close #3923 .

Brief change log

• Add a bucketTableSyncScheduler to DefaultTableService for table loading logic in master-slave mode.
• The history of adding upgrades and switching to master-slave mode is that the allocation table is initialized with SQL for bucket allocation.

How was this patch tested?

• Add some test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive cases if possible

• Add screenshots for manual tests if appropriate

• Run test locally before making a pull request

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@amoro.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

[wardlican]

Please perform CR on these implementations.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked as stale due to 30 days of inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If you think that’s incorrect or this pull request requires a review, please simply write any comment. If closed, you can revive the PR at any time and @mention a reviewer or discuss it on the dev@amoro.apache.org list. Thank you for your contributions.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been closed due to lack of activity. This is not a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It is just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. If you think that is incorrect, or the pull request requires review, you can revive the PR at any time.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 22.78%. Comparing base (cc03949) to head (686f115).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ats/iceberg/maintainer/IcebergTableMaintainer.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (cc03949) and HEAD (686f115). Click for more details.

HEAD has 4 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (cc03949)	HEAD (686f115)
core	4	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #3927      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     29.90%   22.78%   -7.12%     
+ Complexity     4160     2601    -1559     
============================================
  Files           670      461     -209     
  Lines         53533    42169   -11364     
  Branches       6797     5925     -872     
============================================
- Hits          16008     9608    -6400     
+ Misses        36343    31724    -4619     
+ Partials       1182      837     -345     

Flag	Coverage Δ
core	?
trino	22.78% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.