Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([216.151.103.158])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3E88Q872614
	for <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:08:26 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3E88ER13490;
	Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:08:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
cc: "Marcin Wasilewski" <marcingrupy@poczta.onet.pl>,
	pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Order in CREATE VIEW 
In-reply-to: <200104140623.f3E6NqU29861@linda.lfix.co.uk> 
References: <200104140623.f3E6NqU29861@linda.lfix.co.uk>
Comments: In-reply-to "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
	message dated "Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:23:51 +0100"
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:08:14 -0400
Message-ID: <13487.987235694@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200104/575
X-Sequence-Number: 7723

"Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> A view creates a virtual table; there is no implicit ordering in a table,
> so it follows that you should not be able to impose one in a view.

This is indeed the pure-SQL attitude, but it may be worth pointing out
that Postgres 7.1 does allow ORDER BY in subselects and views anyway.

The main reason that that seems like a good idea (IMHO at least) is that
ORDER BY together with LIMIT allow you to select specific rows in ways
that are difficult to accomplish otherwise.

			regards, tom lane