refactor(frontend): create streaming job handling

[BugenZhao]

I hereby agree to the terms of the Singularity Data, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

Refactor the path of handling creating streaming jobs.

• Split gen_materialize_plan into another gen_table_plan. Those table-specific arguments are not necessary for gen_materialize_plan.
• Handle user columns like mv_or_sink(v1, v2) in the PlanRoot.
• Split StreamMaterialize::create into multiple methods.
  • create: for mview/sink/index, no table-specific arguments, columns are derived from the input.
  • create_for_table: for table, columns are passed-in and consistent with the bind_sql_columns in the first step of the handler. This is a must-have for schema change that do not let the StreamMaterialize::create handle the column ID generation.
• No need to create 2 materialize node when create table.
• Store the CREATE TABLE SQL for future schema change usages.

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)

Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)

• Tracking: new DML design #5949
• Tracking: table schema change #6903

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7101 (5376d94) into main (fe8ff49) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 90.45%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7101      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.19%   73.19%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1051     1051              
  Lines      167386   167423      +37     
==========================================
+ Hits       122515   122539      +24     
- Misses      44871    44884      +13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	73.19% <90.45%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/frontend/src/handler/create_table_as.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/frontend/src/handler/create_source.rs	60.56% <62.50%> (+0.32%)	⬆️
src/frontend/src/handler/create_sink.rs	97.10% <66.66%> (+0.52%)	⬆️
src/frontend/src/handler/create_table.rs	89.43% <81.81%> (-0.47%)	⬇️
...tend/src/optimizer/plan_node/stream_materialize.rs	93.00% <92.47%> (+3.00%)	⬆️
src/frontend/src/optimizer/mod.rs	95.77% <95.08%> (-1.27%)	⬇️
src/frontend/src/catalog/table_catalog.rs	97.22% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/frontend/src/handler/create_index.rs	88.52% <100.00%> (ø)
src/frontend/src/handler/create_mv.rs	95.83% <100.00%> (+1.36%)	⬆️
src/frontend/src/handler/mod.rs	61.90% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 14 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[st1page]

LGTM

[xx01cyx]

LGTM

[mergify]

Hey @BugenZhao, this pull request failed to merge and has been dequeued from the merge train. If you believe your PR failed in the merge train because of a flaky test, requeue it by clicking "Update branch" or pushing an empty commit with git commit --allow-empty -m "rerun" && git push.