[EPIC] Implement Range Partitioning

### Problem

`Partitioning::Range` now exists as a physical partitioning model, but optimizer and planning code still need to preserve and use range metadata consistently. The goal of this epic is to make range-partitioned plans avoid unnecessary repartitioning while keeping multi-input correctness explicit.

Related discussion: #21992.

### Primary implementation order

- [x] #22397
- [x] #22589
- [x] #22778
- [x] #22645
- [x] #22786
- [x] #22787
- [x] #23137
- [x] #23236
- [x] #23191
- [x] #23183
- [x] #23290
- [x] #23289
- [x] #23451 , #23478 , #23479 (these were decided to be put into one PR)
- [x] #23452
- [x] #23453
- [x] #23454
- [x] #23266
- [x] #23450
- [x] #23376
- [x] #23455

### Optimizer and integration follow-ups

These are related but do not need to block the primary join and distribution-satisfaction path.

- [x] #23230
- [ ] #23436
- [x] #22394
- [ ] #22788
- [ ] #23569
- [x] #23572

### Documentation
- [ ] https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/24667

Start with the related discussion #21992 and the remaining unchecked follow-ups #23436, #22788, #23569, and documentation issue #24667. Review the completed checklist for implementation context; done means addressing the selected follow-up scope and updating the epic's remaining checklist items.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.