feat(optimizer): support expr visitable for plan node

[chenzl25]

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

What's changed and what's your intention?

• Resolve feat: support ExprVisitable for plan nodes #13510
• Support ExprVisitable for each plan node so that there are no plan nodes missed.

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
• 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)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

[BugenZhao]

If I understand correctly, the developers should manually ensure that the implementation is identical to ExprRewritable? Although it appears that there is no effective approach for reusing them in Rust.

[chenzl25]

If I understand correctly, the developers should manually ensure that the implementation is identical to ExprRewritable? Although it appears that there is no effective approach for reusing them in Rust.

Yes. One is a mutable reference and the other one is an immutable reference.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 192 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (11011b1) 68.17% compared to head (3e86ae4) 68.12%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...nd/src/optimizer/plan_node/batch_table_function.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...c/frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/batch_values.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
.../frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/stream_values.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
...frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/logical_insert.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/logical_source.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
.../src/optimizer/plan_node/logical_table_function.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/mod.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...rc/frontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/generic/agg.rs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
...tend/src/optimizer/plan_node/logical_multi_join.rs	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
...ontend/src/optimizer/plan_node/batch_hop_window.rs	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
... and 44 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13587      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.17%   68.12%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files        1512     1513       +1     
  Lines      261145   261337     +192     
==========================================
- Hits       178040   178025      -15     
- Misses      83105    83312     +207     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	68.12% <0.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[xxchan]

If we can visit the plan node to check whether we actually need to rewrite exprs we can save CPU cost.

Can you do that together and demonstrate how much improvement it provides? 👀

Since this feat is solely for that optimization purpose, I'd rather confirm it works before adding this part.

[chenzl25]

@xxchan Sure. It can reduce CPU from 2.2% to 0.1% for inline_now_proc_time.
Before:

After: