I have been able to run a test like you have in a query (if that's the right
term), and ORDER BY does work. When trying to run via psql, it fails, I
can't see what I'm doing wrong. (windows xp, postgres 8.2.0-1)
ups=# select proc_item_list(1,true);
proc_item_list
--------------------
<unnamed portal 3>
(1 row)
ups=# fetch all from "<unnamed portal 3>";
ERROR: cursor "<unnamed portal 3>" does not exist
ups=#
Michael Fuhr wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 05:18:42PM -0700, novnov wrote:
>> It seems that at least in the way I've written the function below, ORDER
>> BY
>> is ignored.
>
> Works here (see below). Can you post a complete example that shows
> ORDER BY being ignored? Do you get different results from the
> cursor than if you execute the same query directly? What version
> of PostgreSQL are you running?
>
>
> CREATE TABLE t_item (
> item_id integer PRIMARY KEY,
> item_name text NOT NULL,
> item_org_id integer NOT NULL,
> item_active boolean NOT NULL
> );
>
> INSERT INTO t_item VALUES (4, 'four', 1, true);
> INSERT INTO t_item VALUES (2, 'two', 1, true);
> INSERT INTO t_item VALUES (1, 'one', 1, true);
> INSERT INTO t_item VALUES (3, 'three', 1, true);
>
> BEGIN;
>
> SELECT proc_item_list(1, true);
> proc_item_list
> --------------------
> <unnamed portal 1>
> (1 row)
>
> FETCH ALL FROM "<unnamed portal 1>";
> item_id | item_name | item_org_id | item_active
> ---------+-----------+-------------+-------------
> 1 | one | 1 | t
> 2 | two | 1 | t
> 3 | three | 1 | t
> 4 | four | 1 | t
> (4 rows)
>
> COMMIT;
>
> --
> Michael Fuhr
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/function-retuning-refcursor%2C-order-by-ignored--tf3837519.html#a10876641
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
