On 5 Apr 2016, at 10:59, R Smith wrote:
>
> The documentation is correct and the fault is not that the ORDER BY 
> did not only apply to the last select - the problem is more that the 
> ORDER BY abs(num) did not know that "num" is a valid column name in 
> the compound select - which seems understandable, and perhaps not a 
> bug, but probably something that can be fixed or enhanced.

   Thanks.

Reply via email to