Re: ORDER BY $1 behaves inconsistently

Actually, it's even worse than I thought. It seems that placeholders in
ORDER BY clauses get entirely ignored,
as running `EXECUTE x(1)` on the previous example with unsorted table data
does not sort the table by the 1st
column as expected.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:18 PM Jordan Lewis <jordanthelewis(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Version: 10.0
>
> As I understand it, the only valid constant datatype in an ORDER BY is
> integer. That's validated by the following test:
>
> jordan=# SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY 'foo';
> ERROR: non-integer constant in ORDER BY
> LINE 1: SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY 'foo';
>
> However, using a prepared statement, this behavior can be avoided:
>
> jordan=# PREPARE x as SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY $1;
> PREPARE
> jordan=# EXECUTE x('foo');
> c
> ---
> 1
>
> It seems to me that there is some missing type checking from ORDER BY.
>