feat(expr): support jsonb @>, <@, ?, ?| and ?& operator

[wangrunji0408]

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

As title.

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
• My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
• My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)

• My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

• My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Support jsonb operators:

jsonb @> jsonb → boolean
Does the first JSON value contain the second? (See [Section 8.14.3](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-json.html#JSON-CONTAINMENT) for details about containment.)
'{"a":1, "b":2}'::jsonb @> '{"b":2}'::jsonb → t

jsonb <@ jsonb → boolean
Is the first JSON value contained in the second?
'{"b":2}'::jsonb <@ '{"a":1, "b":2}'::jsonb → t

jsonb ? text → boolean
Does the text string exist as a top-level key or array element within the JSON value?
'{"a":1, "b":2}'::jsonb ? 'b' → t
'["a", "b", "c"]'::jsonb ? 'b' → t

jsonb ?| text[] → boolean
Do any of the strings in the text array exist as top-level keys or array elements?
'{"a":1, "b":2, "c":3}'::jsonb ?| array['b', 'd'] → t

jsonb ?& text[] → boolean
Do all of the strings in the text array exist as top-level keys or array elements?
'["a", "b", "c"]'::jsonb ?& array['a', 'b'] → t

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #13056 (403dcc9) into main (9a5e2b8) will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 9.89%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13056      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.27%   68.25%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1499     1500       +1     
  Lines      252602   252691      +89     
==========================================
+ Hits       172459   172467       +8     
- Misses      80143    80224      +81     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	68.25% <9.89%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
src/frontend/src/binder/expr/function.rs	78.63% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
src/frontend/src/expr/pure.rs	87.69% <ø> (ø)
src/frontend/src/binder/expr/binary_op.rs	71.87% <0.00%> (-3.95%)	⬇️
src/sqlparser/src/ast/operator.rs	84.93% <0.00%> (-6.25%)	⬇️
src/sqlparser/src/parser.rs	87.39% <16.66%> (-0.14%)	⬇️
src/sqlparser/src/tokenizer.rs	92.67% <20.00%> (-0.94%)	⬇️
src/expr/impl/src/scalar/jsonb_contains.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[xiangjinwu]

Just fyi since you may be interested:

To align with PostgreSQL user-defined operator, these builtin pg-specific operators can also be refactored to be recognized in binder with a lookup table (pg_operator). so that there is no need to modified tokenizer + parser for each operator. The tokenizing rule is actually this.

It seems to be an overkill right now, so I am not giving it a high priority.

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 2 secrets following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secrets in your pull request

GitGuardian id	Secret	Commit	Filename
7648795	Generic CLI Secret	5b164e8	integration_tests/iceberg-cdc/docker-compose.yml	View secret
7648795	Generic CLI Secret	5b164e8	integration_tests/iceberg-cdc/run_test.sh	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secrets safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate these secrets.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

<sup>🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

Our GitHub checks need improvements? Share your feedbacks!</sup>