little-cartoon-10569
10/03/2023, 9:49 PMpulumi up
will fail, because the new record will be created before the old one is destroyed, and AWS will cause that to fail.
What is the correct / easiest solution?
• I'm hoping that renaming the base record in AWS will be enough: this will prevent the name clash, allowing the new record to be created. However, will it delete the correct record next? Or will it delete based on record name, which means the new record will be deleted?
• Also, when I browse in Route53, there are a pile of related records that presumably have been created by AWS behind the scenes: TXT records with _amazonses
prefixed; CNAME records with guids prefixed, and CNAME records with guids and _domainkey
prefixes. Will these ones cause a clash and a failure?I'm hoping that renaming the base record in AWS will be enough: this will prevent the name clash, allowing the new record to be created. However, will it delete the correct record next? Or will it delete based on record name, which means the new record will be deleted?It does delete the new record. Editing the record is not a solution.
calm-cat-43230
10/04/2023, 1:05 AMallowOverwrite
input (similar to deleteExisting
in CDK construct) be helpful here? https://www.pulumi.com/registry/packages/aws/api-docs/route53/record/#inputslittle-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:08 AMpulumi up
. This results in the record being created (which means updated) then deleted.
2. pulumi state delete
the new resource.
3. Remove the allowOverwrite property and run pulumi up
, to get everything where I want it.
Steps one and two can be reversed with no difference to the end result.fierce-ability-58936
10/04/2023, 1:20 AMlittle-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:21 AMgreat-sunset-355
10/07/2023, 10:58 AMlittle-cartoon-10569
10/07/2023, 8:06 PMfierce-ability-58936
10/08/2023, 9:01 PMlittle-cartoon-10569
10/08/2023, 9:06 PM