Changing how a constraint addition is structured, to match what Dolt/GMS does

[fulghum]

We were previously modeling an inline constraint definition as a separate DDL command. This changes it to be consistent with how GMS and Dolt works, by using a single DDL command, and setting the constraint action.

[github-actions]

	Main	PR
covering_index_scan_postgres	359.16/s	370.27/s	+3.0%
index_join_postgres	154.95/s	155.12/s	+0.1%
index_join_scan_postgres	186.16/s	185.75/s	-0.3%
index_scan_postgres	12.48/s	12.43/s	-0.5%
oltp_point_select	2569.11/s	2640.35/s	+2.7%
oltp_read_only	1802.65/s	1831.96/s	+1.6%
select_random_points	109.95/s	112.19/s	+2.0%
select_random_ranges	131.25/s	132.98/s	+1.3%
table_scan_postgres	10.47/s	10.31/s	-1.6%
types_table_scan_postgres	5.42/s	5.42/s	0.0%

[github-actions]

	Main	PR
Total	42090	42090
Successful	15568	15573
Failures	26522	26517
Partial Successes1	5208	5208

	Main	PR
Successful	36.9874%	36.9993%
Failures	63.0126%	63.0007%

${\color{lightgreen}Progressions (5)}$

alter_table

QUERY: alter table atacc1 add column value int check (value < 10);

QUERY: alter table p1 add column a1 int check (a1 > 0);

QUERY: update p1 set a1 = a1 + 1, f2 = upper(f2);

inherit

QUERY: alter table pp1 add column a1 int check (a1 > 0);

QUERY: alter table pp1 add column a2 int check (a2 > 0);

Footnotes

1. These are tests that we're marking as Successful, however they do not match the expected output in some way. This is due to small differences, such as different wording on the error messages, or the column names being incorrect while the data itself is correct. ↩

[zachmu]

LGTM!