feat(frontend): Add struct scan and simply optimise struct filter.

[xxhZs]

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

What's changed and what's your intention?

(v1,v2) > (1,2) means v1 > 1 or (v1 =1 and v2 >2), so it eq all data from (1,2)

in this pr, we add optimise for struct filter
for example :
(v1,v2,v3) > (1,2,3) if v1 ,v2, v3 all pk, we can push it down table scan((v1,v2,v3) > (1,2,3));
if v1, v2 is pk , v3 is not pk , we can push v1 v2 down table scan and add filter , the plan like :
filter(v1,v2,v3) > (1,2,3)
scan : (v1,v2) > (1,2);
Although the filter remains unchanged, the number of scans is reduced

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

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.

[chenzl25]

Could you please add some planner tests?

[chenzl25]

I think we should consider change struct to row, since we use RowScanRange instead of StructScanRange