feat: allow retention_seconds on append only table and its downstream index

[st1page]

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

What's changed and what's your intention?

close #14791

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

Users can set TTL(time to live) on the append-only table with the retention_seconds option and the record will be removed from the table after the retention seconds passed.
The same retention seconds will be applied to the table's downstream index automatically.

dev=> create table t(v int) APPEND ONLY with (retention_seconds = 5);
NOTICE:  APPEND ONLY TABLE is currently an experimental feature.
CREATE_TABLE
dev=> create index i on t(v);
CREATE_INDEX
dev=> insert into t values(1);
INSERT 0 1
dev=> flush;
FLUSH
dev=> select * from t;
 v 
---
 1
(1 row)

dev=> select * from i;
 v 
---
 1
(1 row)

dev=> select pg_sleep(5);
 pg_sleep 
----------
         
(1 row)

dev=> select * from i;
 v 
---
(0 rows)

dev=> select * from t;
 v 
---
(0 rows)

[github-actions]

license-eye has totally checked 4825 files.

Valid	Invalid	Ignored	Fixed
2093	1	2731	0

Click to see the invalid file list

• src/frontend/src/optimizer/mod.rs

[fuyufjh]

LGTM

[fuyufjh]

QQ. Once a row has expired, but hasn't been removed by compactor yet, will the scan iterator "hides" it?

[st1page]

I remember there is some code in state store implementation to "hide" it. need to check @Li0k

[Li0k]

We definitely hide it, by filtering it in the min_epoch of the iterator on the read path.