Re: Lisp as procedural language

Can someone explain why we have a lisp.sgml file in our docs?  Seems it
descripes a 3rd party Emacs interface.  I don't think we should start
distributing docs for software we don't distribute.  Can I remove it?


> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > This must have been an artifact from the time when part of the Postgres
> > system was written in Lisp.  A Lisp procedural language never actually
> > existed in PostgreSQL.
> 
> [ Digs in archives... ]  The pg_language entry that Vladimir refers to
> was still present as late as Postgres 6.5 --- but I agree that it must
> have been vestigial long before that.  Certainly, at one time large
> chunks of Postgres *were* written in Lisp, and I imagine that the
> pg_language entry did something useful when that was true.  But it was
> dead code in Postgres 4.2 (1994), which is the oldest source I have;
> there is no Lisp code remaining in 4.2.
> 
> It'd theoretically be possible to support Lisp in the same way as we
> currently support Tcl, Perl, etc.  The hard part is to find a suitable
> interpreter that is designed to be dynamically linked into other
> applications.  Perl still hasn't got that quite right, and I imagine
> it's an even more foreign idea for most Lisp systems...

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026