Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:54:43 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Section 26.2.1. Planning wording
Message-ID: <20181127015443.GB16835@momjian.us>
References: <4D384363-8035-42BD-9EC1-4E1816FD123D@flame.co.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4D384363-8035-42BD-9EC1-4E1816FD123D@flame.co.za>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:38:02AM +0200, Theo Kramer wrote:
> Section 26.2.1. Planning wording includes the following
> 
> "In any case the hardware architecture must be the same — shipping from, say, a 32-bit to a 64-bit system will not work."
> 
> would  be more correct if it read as follows
> 
> "In any case the CPU architecture must be the same — shipping from, say, a 32-bit to a 64-bit system will not work."
> 
> as “hardware architecture” would imply the difference between say Dell and IBM which should be ok if the CPU is the same architecture ...

I feel we might have cases where differences beyond the CPU might
matter, though I can't think of any now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +