Let extension bundles declare tables and table functions

[timsaucer]

Which issue does this PR close?

Part 3 of 4 toward #1676.

1. scalar, aggregate, and window functions
2. physical optimizer rules
3. This PR -> tables and table functions
4. catalog providers

Rationale for this change

#1738 and #1739 covered every component whose capsule getter takes no argument. Tables and table functions are the other kind — their getters take the session — and that difference is the whole of this PR. It is also the second demonstrated gap from #1721: build_session registers tables as a separate step 4, after with_extensions.

What changes are included in this PR?

udtfs and table_providers, both as (name, value) pairs. Neither carries a name of its own the way a scalar function's capsule does, so the name is given alongside the value. table_providers accepts anything register_table does; names may be qualified.

The host resolves them, and the bundle must not. __datafusion_table_function__ and __datafusion_table_provider__ are handed the session, and __datafusion_table_function__ pulls the host's logical codec straight off it. The context a components hook receives has none of the call's codecs installed yet, so a bundle that wrapped its own TableFunction would capture a chain missing every library in the call — including its own — and nothing would go wrong until a decode in another process. So bundles hand over the unwrapped value and the host wraps it against the finished handle, in the resolve step.

That is a claim worth asserting rather than describing, so RecordingTableFunction in the example crate records the codec ids of whatever session it is resolved against, and test_a_declared_table_function_sees_the_finished_codec_chain installs it alongside a second bundle that contributes a codec. The recorded ids match the finished chain and are non-empty; resolving against the hook's context would record [].

Tables do not shadow. DataFusion refuses a duplicate table registration rather than replacing it, so unlike a function, a declared table name that is already on the session is an error — not only one that two bundles both claim. Both cases are caught during resolution, along with resolving the destination schema, so a bad or qualified-but-unknown name costs nothing and the rest of the call is left unwritten.

_resolve_extension_tables / _install_extension_tables, following the split #1739 established, with one exception I want to be explicit about rather than paper over: the insert goes through a SchemaProvider, and a foreign one can still refuse a registration it reported as available. That is the one place in with_extensions that can leave a call part-applied. Tables are therefore committed first, so when it happens no planner has been bound and no function registered behind it. extension-guide/bundles.md states this as an exception to the infallible-commit rule rather than claiming a guarantee that does not hold.

Docs. bundles.md gains an extension_bundles_binding section splitting components by what their getter asks for, which is the rule the rest of the stack is built on; the transaction section gains the table exception; the collision section gains the no-shadowing rule. table-providers.md and functions.md each gain the bundle form and a pointer to why the value is handed over unwrapped. user-guide/extensions.md no longer claims tables always register directly.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Two new optional fields on SessionExtensionComponents, defaulting to (). No existing behaviour changes: register_table and register_udtf are untouched, and the new resolution path is only reachable through with_extensions. No upgrade-guide entry and no api change label.

Review notes

The pair shape is worth arguing about. udfs accepts either a wrapper or a raw exportable; udtfs accepts only the raw value plus a name. That is not an inconsistency for its own sake — a TableFunction can only be built by calling the getter with some session, and a bundle does not have the right one. Accepting a pre-built one would mean accepting one bound to the wrong chains. If you would rather it accepted both and documented the hazard, say so.

table_exist then insert is a check-then-act. Under the GIL, within a single with_extensions call, nothing else is registering concurrently. The alternative is to drop the check and let the duplicate surface from the insert, which would report the same problem after the call had already written the tables ahead of it.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code