feat: support array containment @>, <@ (#13180)

[thexiay]

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

What's changed and what's your intention?

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)

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.

[xiangjinwu]

Generally LGTM. Thank you!

Btw there is a darker side of PostgreSQL:

test=# select array[[2, 3], [4, 5]] @> array[3, 4];
 ?column? 
----------
 t
(1 row)

My suggestions is to merge the current matching-dimension version first, and consider this as an optional add-on. Although we do have ListRef::flatten (instead of ListRef::iter) and DataType::unnest_list (instead of DataType::as_list), the type handling logic may still be more complicated.

[wangrunji0408]

LGTM! Thanks!

[thexiay]

Generally LGTM. Thank you!

Btw there is a darker side of PostgreSQL:

test=# select array[[2, 3], [4, 5]] @> array[3, 4];
 ?column? 
----------
 t
(1 row)

My suggestions is to merge the current matching-dimension version first, and consider this as an optional add-on. Although we do have ListRef::flatten (instead of ListRef::iter) and DataType::unnest_list (instead of DataType::as_list), the type handling logic may still be more complicated.

ok,I will consider this situation.

[xiangjinwu]

ok,I will consider this situation.

To clarify, I am suggesting us to fix the e2e, skip the regress test, merge this PR of matching-dimension arrays, and then handle the flatten/unnest case in a separate PR (optional).

[thexiay]

ok,I will consider this situation.

To clarify, I am suggesting us to fix the e2e, skip the regress test, merge this PR of matching-dimension arrays, and then handle the flatten/unnest case in a separate PR (optional).

ok，I will fix it later. And Launch two issues to track this unfinished work

1. handle the flatten/unnest case for array_contains
2. (optional) reuse the same ExprType (if needed) for jsonb contains or array contains or any other range contains(not impelemented)

[TennyZhuang]

Generally LGTM

[thexiay]

Track the handling of nested types here： #13274

[stdrc]

Seems that these functions are not provided by PG, do we really need to expose these functions to our users? BTW, even if we decide to expose them, arraycontains and arraycontained seem unnecessary and for array_contains and array_contained we need to think about potential inalignment with PG if PG adds these functions with different signatures in the future.