Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for storage_throughput attribute #452

Closed
take-five opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #453
Closed

Add support for storage_throughput attribute #452

take-five opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #453

Comments

@take-five
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, AWS recently added support for gp3 storage type in RDS: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2022/11/amazon-rds-general-purpose-gp3-storage-volumes/

Terraform AWS provider also released support for it in version 4.45.0.

Would it be possible to add support for it in this module as well?

Is your request related to a new offering from AWS?

Is this functionality available in the AWS provider for Terraform? See CHANGELOG.md, too.

  • No 🛑: please wait to file a request until the functionality is avaialble in the AWS provider
  • Yes ✅: please list the AWS provider version which introduced this functionality

Yes, support for gp3 storage type and storage_throughput attribute was added to Terraform AWS provider in version 4.45.0: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#4450-december--2-2022


FWIW, I can create a PR myself, but I'd like to understand what's the general strategy when adding new attributes? Do you increase Terraform AWS version provider requirement? Do you bump minor version? Or major?

take-five added a commit to take-five/terraform-aws-rds that referenced this issue Dec 5, 2022
AWS recently [added support for `gp3` storage type][1], and Terraform
AWS provider [implemented][2] this functionality as well in version 4.45.0.

Closes terraform-aws-modules#452

[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2022/11/amazon-rds-general-purpose-gp3-storage-volumes/
[2]: hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#27670
take-five added a commit to take-five/terraform-aws-rds that referenced this issue Dec 5, 2022
AWS recently [added support for `gp3` storage type][1], and Terraform
AWS provider [implemented][2] this functionality as well in version 4.45.0.

Closes terraform-aws-modules#452

[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2022/11/amazon-rds-general-purpose-gp3-storage-volumes/
[2]: hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#27670
take-five added a commit to take-five/terraform-aws-rds that referenced this issue Dec 5, 2022
AWS recently [added support for `gp3` storage type][1], and Terraform
AWS provider [implemented][2] this functionality as well in version 4.45.0.

Closes terraform-aws-modules#452

[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2022/11/amazon-rds-general-purpose-gp3-storage-volumes/
[2]: hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#27670
take-five added a commit to take-five/terraform-aws-rds that referenced this issue Dec 5, 2022
AWS recently [added support for `gp3` storage type][1], and Terraform
AWS provider [implemented][2] this functionality as well in version 4.45.0.

Closes terraform-aws-modules#452

[1]: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2022/11/amazon-rds-general-purpose-gp3-storage-volumes/
[2]: hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#27670
@antonbabenko
Copy link
Member

This issue has been resolved in version 5.2.0 🎉

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 5, 2023

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.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 5, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants