No matter how you like to participate in developer communities, Pulumi wants to meet you there. If you want to meet other Pulumi users to share use-cases and best practices, contribute code or documentation, see us at an event, or just tell a story about something cool you did with Pulumi, you are part of our community.

Pulumi Community

Hi, I'm trying to switch to v5.1.0 of the Pulumi AWS provider, but I'm hitting a problem with RDS Instaces. The documentation says that `name` has been deprecated in favor of `db_name`. Indeed, this shows up when I run Pulumi:

```     ├─ aws:rds:Instance         db1              [diff: +name-dbName]; 1 warning```
```warning: name is deprecated: Use db_name instead```
But when I actually make the code change to `db_name`, Pulumi wants to replace all my databases:

``` +-  ├─ aws:rds:Instance           db1                 replace     [diff: +dbName]```
I'm not sure how to progress from here, I've checked the state file and it mentions `dbName` , not `name`, so I wonder why it complains. Thank you.

can you show me the full diff? I think you can work around this with aliases

```    ++aws:rds/instance:Instance: (create-replacement)
        [id=database128736]
        [urn=urn:pulumi:precise::lytt::aws:rds/instance:Instance::database]
        [provider=urn:pulumi:precise::lytt::pulumi:providers:aws::provider::634a5466-1c03-4524-a582-fede56d53694]
      + dbName: "database"
    +-aws:rds/instance:Instance: (replace)
        [id=database128736]
        [urn=urn:pulumi:precise::lytt::aws:rds/instance:Instance::database]
        [provider=urn:pulumi:precise::lytt::pulumi:providers:aws::provider::634a5466-1c03-4524-a582-fede56d53694]
    --aws:rds/instance:Instance: (delete-replaced)
        [id=database128736]
        [urn=urn:pulumi:precise::lytt::aws:rds/instance:Instance::database]
        [provider=urn:pulumi:precise::lytt::pulumi:providers:aws::provider::634a5466-1c03-4524-a582-fede56d53694]        ```

I tried setting up some aliases by myself, but it didn't work.

Hi <@U013QM2EK7Y>, have you managed to solve this?

Yes-ish. I gave it a try again after the latest round of updates and it started working as expected when I switched to `db_name`. I'm happy.