> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers- > ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Dunstan > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:43 PM > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ORDER BY 1 COLLATE > > On 04/18/2011 04:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> writes: > >> This came from a review by Noah Misch a great while ago: > >> test=> SELECT b FROM foo ORDER BY 1 COLLATE "C"; > >> ERROR: 42804: collations are not supported by type integer > >> According to SQL92, this should be supported. Do we want to bother? > It > >> doesn't look hard to fix, so it's really only a question of whether > this > >> would be useful, or its absence would be too confusing. > > The ORDER BY 1 business seems to me to be legacy anyway. I'm not > > inclined to put in even more hacks to make strange combinations work > > there --- I think we're likely to find ourselves painted into a > corner > > someday as it is. > > > > > > It's likely to be used by SQL generators if nothing else, and I've been > known to use it as a very convenient shorthand. It would seem to me > like > quite a strange inconsistency to allow order by n with some qualifiers > but not others.
I use order by <result_set_column_number> a lot, especially when result_set_column is a complicated expression. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
