### Description

The [Terms Set Query](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/query-dsl-terms-set-query.html) lets you match documents that have some minimum number of matches to a given array of input search terms. The minimum number of matches however can only be specified by referencing another field on the document or by using a script.  

I have a use case where I need to be able to specify the minimum number of terms to match at query time, agnostic of documents so the `minimum_should_match_field` is not useful. Further, since I know I need to match a minimum of exactly, say, 3 terms, it seems like overkill to have to enable and using scripting (as in the use of `minimum_should_match_script`) to just return a static number.

Today as an alternative, I'm instead using a Bool Query with a `minimum_should_match` accepting my explicit number and all of my input search terms mapping to an array of individual `{ term: { field: value } }` entries in the `should` array of the bool. However, this is very json-inefficient, especially when I am making queries with many (possibly thousands) of terms in my query.

I was so happy to find the Terms Set query as a leaner, more specialized alternative to my massive `should` array but was then very surprised that there was no query-time input for the minimum match count (outside scripting).

**TL;DR:** Terms Set query should support a third possible top-level parameter for specifying the minimum number of terms to match which simply accepts a number, like `minimum_should_match`
server/src/test/java/org/elasticsearch/index/query/TermsSetQueryBuilderTests.java
assertEquals(
            "query should " + (isCacheable ? "" : "not") + " be cacheable: " + queryBuilder.toString(),
            isCacheable,
            context.isCacheable()
        );
        
        queryBuilder = new TermsSetQueryBuilder(TEXT_FIELD_NAME, Collections.singletonList("foo"));
        queryBuilder.setMinimumShouldMatchField("m_s_m");
        context = createSearchExecutionContext();
        rewriteQuery(queryBuilder, new SearchExecutionContext(context));
        assertNotNull(queryBuilder.doToQuery(context));
        assertTrue("query should be cacheable: " + queryBuilder.toString(), context.isCacheable());
        queryBuilder = new TermsSetQueryBuilder(TEXT_FIELD_NAME, Collections.emptyList());
        queryBuilder.setMinimumShouldMatchScript(new Script(ScriptType.INLINE, MockScriptEngine.NAME, "_script", emptyMap()));
        context = createSearchExecutionContext();
        rewriteQuery(queryBuilder, new SearchExecutionContext(context));
        assertNotNull(queryBuilder.doToQuery(context));
        assertTrue("query should be cacheable: " + queryBuilder.toString(), context.isCacheable());
        
        queryBuilder = new TermsSetQueryBuilder(TEXT_FIELD_NAME, Collections.singletonList("foo"));
        queryBuilder.setMinimumShouldMatchScript(new Script(ScriptType.INLINE, MockScriptEngine.NAME, "_script", emptyMap()));
        context = createSearchExecutionContext();
        rewriteQuery(queryBuilder, new SearchExecutionContext(context));
        assertNotNull(queryBuilder.doToQuery(context));
        assertFalse("query should be cacheable: " + queryBuilder.toString(), context.isCacheable());
    }
    @Override
    public TermsSetQueryBuilder mutateInstance(final TermsSetQueryBuilder instance) throws IOException {
        String fieldName = instance.getFieldName();
        List<?> values = instance.getValues();