parser: support (Row(..),Row(..))=>(..) in the binding mode

[hawkingrei]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #51222

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

before bugfix, process looks like this.

In (Row(..), Row(..)) =>In  (Row(..),Row(..))
In (Row(..), Row(..), Row(..)) =>In  (Row(..),Row(..),Row(..))

so we cannot bind the SQL with In ((..),(..))

after bugfix. it can work.

In (Row(..), Row(..)) =>In  (...)
In (Row(..), Row(..), Row(..)) =>In  (...)

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[hawkingrei]

/check-issue-triage-complete

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #51319 (495ad6b) into master (3c3ba00) will increase coverage by 1.7614%.
Report is 7 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 65.5737%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #51319        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   70.6318%   72.3933%   +1.7614%     
================================================
  Files          1460       1462         +2     
  Lines        434706     439089      +4383     
================================================
+ Hits         307041     317871     +10830     
+ Misses       108410     101171      -7239     
- Partials      19255      20047       +792     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	49.0879% <45.9016%> (?)
unit	70.3380% <65.5737%> (-0.0962%)	⬇️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	53.9957% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	51.3655% <ø> (+5.5081%)	⬆️

[elsa0520]

LGTM

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-02-27 06:58:52.935628936 +0000 UTC m=+945221.683252045: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.
• 2024-02-27 07:28:23.901563651 +0000 UTC m=+946992.649186748: ☑️ agreed by elsa0520.

[D3Hunter]

rest lgtm

[D3Hunter]

why not just replace literal with ?? such as "select ? from b where (x,y) in ((?, ?), (?, ?)), should be simplier to implement.

[hawkingrei]

It is not binding mode. In binding mode, It must be select ? from b where (x,y) in (...).

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: D3Hunter, elsa0520, qw4990

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [D3Hunter,elsa0520,qw4990]
• pkg/parser/OWNERS [D3Hunter]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[hawkingrei]

/retest

[hawkingrei]

/cherrypick release-7.5
/cherrypick release-7.1

[ti-chi-bot]

@hawkingrei: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #51364.

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-7.5
/cherrypick release-7.1

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

[ti-chi-bot]

@hawkingrei: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #51365.

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-7.5
/cherrypick release-7.1

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository.

[lmduean]

It seems like you haven't considered the compatibility issues when upgrading.
@hawkingrei