Andy Allan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Foreign key constraints are part of the typical database; not an API >> matter. > > Yep, but here's where theory and real-life meet. The new API requires > changes to the database schema (e.g. new tables for changesets, > changing users columns to changesetids on many tables) and you only > get a limited number of times you can take the database off-line to > implement things before everyone starts getting pissed off. So API0.6 > includes more than just changes to the XML API.
Are you saying you are not more pissing people off with bad data than with fixing all constraint problems; and adding a foreign key constraints? A maintaince window is very typical. So one way or the other. It would be good to start thinking about multiple api servers, (maybe take ROMA/HandlerOSM/etc. to compensate for your downtime), and for now leaving the others readonly while the read-write version is secured. I don't really see a problem in this. It is not rocket science to put a reverse proxy in front of the API that will direct GET's to a bunch of slaves and PUT's to the main api. And take the main api down to add the constraints. Stefan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
