release-23.1: tree,optbuilder: store annotations for each UDF body statement

[rafiss]

This also fixes a related issue where user-defined types that was
references in UDF bodies would not be shown in the CREATE FUNCTION
statement. This problem was being masked by the main issue that is
getting fixed.

Release note (bug fix): Previously, referencing a user-defined type in
the body of a user-defined function would result in an error at the time
of creating the function. This is now fixed.

Backport:

• 1/1 commits from "tree,optbuilder: store annotations for each UDF body statement" (tree,optbuilder: store annotations for each UDF body statement #105465)
• 1/1 commits from "optbuilder: reset annotations when building CREATE FUNCTION" (optbuilder: reset annotations when building CREATE FUNCTION #105581)

Please see individual PRs for details.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

Release justification: bug fix
fixes #104242

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
• Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
• Patches should change as little code as possible.
• Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
• Patches should not add new functionality.
• Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.

If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.

• There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
• The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
• New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
• The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

• What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
• Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
• If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[DrewKimball]

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @Xiang-Gu)