planner: fix index merge reader may lost enforced prop sort when table plan is pure

[AilinKid]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #49605

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

planner: fix index merge may lost enforce prop sort when table plan is pure

[tiprow]

Hi @AilinKid. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #49844 (7dafcb6) into master (660b1f3) will increase coverage by 0.1987%.
Report is 48 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 25.0000%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #49844        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   70.9584%   71.1571%   +0.1987%     
================================================
  Files          1368       1430        +62     
  Lines        397089     424992     +27903     
================================================
+ Hits         281768     302412     +20644     
- Misses        95623     103576      +7953     
+ Partials      19698      19004       -694     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	43.8805% <25.0000%> (?)
unit	70.9582% <ø> (-0.0002%)	⬇️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	53.9663% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	46.1480% <ø> (-6.7561%)	⬇️

[elsa0520]

BTW， what is the table plan means ?

[fixdb]

If I understand it correctly, table plan means subplan including TableRowIDScan or Selection/Aggregation on top of that TableRowIDScan.

[AilinKid]

to avoid a case that doesn't have tablePlan and indexPlan, but indexMergePartPlans, current this case won't happen after I dig the code from convertToIndexMergeScan.

adding this is just to make the guard line(won't affect any test case before)

[elsa0520]

LGTM

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: elsa0520, winoros

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [elsa0520,winoros]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2023-12-28 08:54:32.288218626 +0000 UTC m=+1728763.325445554: ☑️ agreed by elsa0520.
• 2023-12-28 09:10:02.831471888 +0000 UTC m=+1729693.868698815: ☑️ agreed by winoros.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.5: #49888.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #49889.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #49890.