Fix Delete with multi-tables related by foreign keys

[GuptaManan100]

Description

This PR fixes the issue in #15191

The only way to resolve the problem pointed out in #15191 is to use the DMLWithInput operator that we use for Delete with Limit planning. This PR makes this change.

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes Bug Report: Incorrect results for multi-table delete query with foreign keys #15191

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

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (696fe0e) 67.41% compared to head (bdb8dc8) 67.42%.
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head bdb8dc8 differs from pull request most recent head 9170c36. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9170c36 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #15218   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.41%   67.42%           
=======================================
  Files        1560     1560           
  Lines      192752   192760    +8     
=======================================
+ Hits       129952   129972   +20     
+ Misses      62800    62788   -12     

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

[GuptaManan100]

I've added the backport to release-19.0 label, because we have support for delete with multi-tables in presence of foreign keys there as well, and this bug causes incorrect results, which is reason to backport this fix.