VSchema DDL: Add grammar to accept qualified table names in Vindex option values

[hkdsun]

Description

In a similar spirit as #12519, we have run into another bug handling keyspace names with dashes - in them.

This time, while applying VSchema DDL statements such as:

ALTER VSCHEMA ON test2 
  ADD VINDEX test_lookup_fqn(c1,c2) 
  USING consistent_lookup_unique 
  WITH 
    owner=`test`, 
    from=`c1,c2`, 
    table=`test-keyspace`.`lookup-fqn`, 
    to=`keyspace_id`

Currently, the above is a syntax error, since everything after WITH is parsed as a reserved_sql_id/STRING/INTEGRAL.

This PR introduces table_id '.' reserved_table_id as valid syntax.

I chose this over a blanket table_name token since it's a narrower change, but I'm happy to go either way with it. We will be using fully-qualified table names with keyspace names.

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• If this is a change that users need to know about, please apply the release notes (needs details) label so that merging is blocked unless the summary release notes document is included.
• If a test is added or modified, there should be a documentation on top of the test to explain what the expected behavior is what the test does.

If a new flag is being introduced:

• Is it really necessary to add this flag?
• Flag names should be clear and intuitive (as far as possible)
• Help text should be descriptive.
• Flag names should use dashes (-) as word separators rather than underscores (_).

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow should be required, the maintainer team should be notified.

Bug fixes

• There should be at least one unit or end-to-end test.
• The Pull Request description should include a link to an issue that describes the bug.

Non-trivial changes

• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.

New/Existing features

• Should be documented, either by modifying the existing documentation or creating new documentation.
• New features should have a link to a feature request issue or an RFC that documents the use cases, corner cases and test cases.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from VTop, if used there.

[hkdsun]

👋 This should not impact any reasonable existing usage of the VSchema DDL, and only fix a previously-broken syntax error. As such, I would like to kindly request a backport of this issue (similarly and perhaps bundle with #12519)

[hkdsun]

If not the upcoming v15.0.3, we would love to have this merged and released in the next minor version 🙏

[frouioui]

If not the upcoming v15.0.3, we would love to have this merged and released in the next minor version 🙏

I think this should be part of the upcoming v15.0.3 and v16.0.1.

[frouioui]

Looks good to me, but I'll let @GuptaManan100 manan have a final say on the parser change.

The GH UI is telling me that there are some conflicts though: This branch has conflicts that must be resolved, would you mind fixing those?

[hkdsun]

Good morning/afternoon, thanks for taking a look and including this in the upcoming release!

I have fixed the merge conflict on the codegen file.

🤞 for CI

[frouioui]

Hello @hkdsun, there are some more conflicts in sql.go. I am unable to push to your branch to solve those conflicts on GitHub. Can you resolve conflicts and push them? We'll try to merge your Pull Request as soon as possible to have enough time to merge its backports to our release branches.

[vitess-bot]

I was unable to backport this Pull Request to the following branches: release-15.0, release-16.0.