Column alias expanding on ORDER BY

[systay]

Description

In a recent PR, I did some work on how to rewrite column aliases used in ORDER BY, GROUP BY and HAVING.

I did not get that right, and introduced issues for a set of queries. This PR tries to correctly rewrite more column using the same rules that MySQL has.

Rewrite rules

Terminology first: an expression in the SELECT clause is a SELECT-expression. These can have aliased.
An ORDER BY expression is an expression listed in the ORDER BY clause, without the ASC/DESC modifier.

Rewrite rule:
An unqualified column name in the ORDER BY that matches an alias among the SELECT expressions will be replaced with the SELECT expression if:

• ORDER BY is on SELECT and not UNION
• It's the full ORDER BY expression, OR no table has a matching column name, OR it's used inside an aggregation function.

Related Issue(s)

Original PR #14935

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on 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.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

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

Backward compatibility

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 19 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (27be916) 67.53% compared to head (8175a33) 67.64%.
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
go/vt/vtgate/semantics/early_rewriter.go	92.16%	13 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/semantics/errors.go	33.33%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15302      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.53%   67.64%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files        1561     1561              
  Lines      193387   193535     +148     
==========================================
+ Hits       130607   130913     +306     
+ Misses      62780    62622     -158     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dbussink]

Should we change this once back ported? Since I think we need to back port this to v19 too since that has the previous PR and otherwise we have a significant regression?