On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 15:32, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kerem Kat <keremkat@gmail.com> writes:
>> Corresponding is currently implemented in the parse/analyze phase. If
>> it were to be implemented in the planning phase, explain output would
>> likely be as you expect it to be.
>
> It's already been pointed out to you that doing this at parse time is
> unacceptable, because of the implications for reverse-listing of rules
> (views).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I am well aware of that thank you.
Regards,
Kerem KAT