You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The default storage type for RDS is now "General Purpose (SSD)" when provisioning through the web interface but there is currently no ability to select this through the aws_db_instance provisioner. Instances created through Terraform default to magnetic storage.
Whilst an option to choose between the two would be nice, maybe it would be better for terraform to default to General Purpose (SSD) to match current AWS behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've implemented a means to select the storage type, but I did not change the default behavior. Usually when an optional parameter is omitted in Terraform, Terraform omits that parameter to the API request, in this case to RDS. Although the web interface has changed its default, the RDS API still defaults to magnetic storage, unless iops is specified in which case it defaults to provisioned IOPS SSD storage.
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.
If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.
ghost
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
May 4, 2020
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
The default storage type for RDS is now "General Purpose (SSD)" when provisioning through the web interface but there is currently no ability to select this through the aws_db_instance provisioner. Instances created through Terraform default to magnetic storage.
Whilst an option to choose between the two would be nice, maybe it would be better for terraform to default to General Purpose (SSD) to match current AWS behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: