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

aws_rds_cluster: backup_retention_period is not actually supported #3755

Closed
maxim opened this issue Nov 4, 2015 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3757
Closed

aws_rds_cluster: backup_retention_period is not actually supported #3755

maxim opened this issue Nov 4, 2015 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3757

Comments

@maxim
Copy link

maxim commented Nov 4, 2015

Docs claim that backup_retention_period can be set on aws_rds_cluster, but it's not implemented.

Errors:

  * aws_rds_cluster.default: : invalid or unknown key: backup_retention_period
@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented Nov 4, 2015

@maxim PR incoming :)

@maxim
Copy link
Author

maxim commented Nov 4, 2015

👍

@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented Nov 4, 2015

@maxim PR is now open #3757

omeid pushed a commit to omeid/terraform that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2018
* Add support for aws_wafregional_web_acl_association

* Formatting and updating code

* Updating docs

* Fix documentation markup

* Apply review comments

* Test with multiple associations

* Order items in sidebar alphabetically

* Fix indentation in example + test
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 30, 2020

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 ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 30, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants