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.

