Add with clause projection list rewriter

[andyfengHKU]

// WITH clause is like SQL CTE. So the projection list of WITH clause should be explicitly
// evaluated. This, however, creates problem in the following case
// MATCH (a) WITH a RETURN a.age;
// Although only a.age is needed for further processing. The CTE "MATCH (a) WITH a" require us to
// fully materialize all columns of "a". Note that we cannot rely on projection push down to
// optimize this because projection pushdown assumes all columns in WITH/RETURN are needed.
// Our solution is:
// First rewrite node and rel as their INTERNAL ID property in WITH clause. So
// MATCH (a) WITH a._id RETURN a.age;
// And then apply WithClauseProjectionRewriter after binding to rewrite as
// MATCH (a) WITH a._id, a.age RETURN a.age

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 97.29% and project coverage change: -0.01% ⚠️

Comparison is base (9399be0) 89.67% compared to head (fae0134) 89.67%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1956      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.67%   89.67%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         870      873       +3     
  Lines       32019    32070      +51     
==========================================
+ Hits        28714    28759      +45     
- Misses       3305     3311       +6     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
src/binder/bind/bind_projection_clause.cpp	96.00% <92.30%> (-0.78%)	⬇️
...inder/rewriter/with_clause_projection_rewriter.cpp	96.15% <96.15%> (ø)
src/binder/binder.cpp	96.85% <100.00%> (+0.48%)	⬆️
src/binder/bound_statement_rewriter.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...r/query/return_with_clause/bound_projection_body.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../binder/rewriter/with_clause_projection_rewriter.h	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

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