Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat(rds): support Aurora Serverless V2 instances #25437
feat(rds): support Aurora Serverless V2 instances #25437
Changes from 1 commit
f0ac86a
c85fd89
cd3894c
f95067a
ae00864
20f1f9b
414ef4e
1bcfebc
1226706
0cf77ed
e98a724
104e779
056d2a3
7b4adb5
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How the hell is that possible?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Using the example above for the
db.r6g.4xlarge
instance, if you had a singledb.r6g.4xlarge
reader instance and were using auto scaling then when the cluster scaled it would add anotherdb.r6g.4xlarge
instance which would take time. Alternatively you could provision 2 serverless readers with min=6.5/max=64. These serverless instances would scale up faster (with the read load split between them) faster than adding a new provisioned instance.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added the above to the doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Surely
provisioned
needs more parameters. Are those elided for focus on this particular decision?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, i'll update the example to atleast show that there are properties here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
...and scaling parameters for the serverless instance?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also: any thoughts on how we would incorporate groups/endpoints in here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll update for this. You can't set scaling at the instance level though, you set it at the cluster level and it applies to all instances.
My thought is that we could add a
ClusterInstances.fromGroup
or something like that once there is CloudFormation support.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added both to the doc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 on the migration path
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think
@deprecation
and updating the examples in the README should be sufficient.