Tom Lane Wrote: > Actually, it's not ambiguous according to our interpretation of ORDER BY > clauses: the first attempt is to match an output column name, so it's > seizing on the first SELECT column (b.parentpart) as being the intended > sort key for "parentpart", and similarly for "childpart". You'd get the > same thing if you did "ORDER BY 1,2". >
Aha, I see. Well I learned something new tonight. I didn't realise that Postgres would be that intelligent about it. It makes total sense. I probably should have known this, but I'll forgive myself as I'm one of these people that will prefix all column names when joining in case I ever add new conflicting columns. <end of excuse> > We could disable all those special rules for window cases, but then we'd > have to document how window ORDER BY is different from query ORDER BY, > etc. I think it'd be more confusing not less so. > Without any further thought, I vote to leave it how it is. David. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
