Skip to content

Removing Writer/Reader from instance node name #22

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Removing Writer/Reader from instance node name #22

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c9b546b
Removing node role from name convention
dupontz Sep 17, 2025
5270f0f
test
dupontz Sep 17, 2025
4bcaed0
updating reader node names
dupontz Sep 17, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions aurora-postgres.cfndsl.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Avoids the confusion of misnamed writer/reader instances, but there is also the r53 records, which I'm less sure that we need. The problem with renaming these resources is that it will create new resources for any stack not using a locked version of the component. I think we should consider the creation of a couple of conditions, so that the old behavior defaults and the new behavior can be chosen.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it's going to add nodes to the cluster, there is going to failover at some point. Route53 is pointing to the cluster-endpoint, or at least should be. Let's see if others agree on the naming them we can have another thread on how to rollout

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can't think of anything better for the naming convention, my only thought was something like DBClusterInstancePeer for the reader(s), suggesting that they're the same (though maybe it would be too misleading). Clone? Twin?

Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
Condition("CreateReaderRecord", FnAnd([FnEquals(Ref("EnableReader"), 'true'), Condition('CreateHostRecord')]))
Condition("EnableReader", FnEquals(Ref("EnableReader"), 'true'))

RDS_DBInstance(:DBClusterInstanceWriter) {
RDS_DBInstance(:DBClusterInstance) {
DBSubnetGroupName Ref(:DBClusterSubnetGroup)
DBParameterGroupName Ref(:DBInstanceParameterGroup)
DBClusterIdentifier Ref(:DBCluster)
Expand All @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@

reader_maintenance_window = external_parameters.fetch(:reader_maintenance_window, nil)

RDS_DBInstance(:DBClusterInstanceReader) {
RDS_DBInstance(:DBClusterInstances) {
Condition(:EnableReader)
DBSubnetGroupName Ref(:DBClusterSubnetGroup)
DBParameterGroupName Ref(:DBInstanceParameterGroup)
Expand Down