David Johnston pointed out that the original text here had been obsoleted
by SQL:2008, which allowed ORDER BY in subqueries.  We could weaken the
text to describe ORDER-BY-in-subqueries as an optional SQL feature that's
possibly unportable; but then the exact same statements would apply to
the alternative it's being compared to (ORDER-BY-in-aggregate-calls).
So really that would be pretty useless; let's just take out the sentence
entirely.  Instead, point out the hazard that any extra processing in the
upper query might cause the subquery output order to be destroyed.

Discussion: <CAKFQuwbAX=iO9QbpN7_jr+BnUWm9FYX8WbEPUvG0p+nZhp6TZg@mail.gmail.com>