Get rid of the SpinLockAcquire/SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff distinction

Get rid of the SpinLockAcquire/SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff distinction
in favor of having just one set of macros that don't do HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS
(hence, these correspond to the old SpinLockAcquire_NoHoldoff case).
Given our coding rules for spinlock use, there is no reason to allow
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS to be done while holding a spinlock, and also there
is no situation where ImmediateInterruptOK will be true while holding a
spinlock.  Therefore doing HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS while taking/releasing a
spinlock is just a waste of cycles.  Qingqing Zhou and Tom Lane.