-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
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
S3 remote backend without DynamoDB #35625
Comments
Thanks for this feature request! If you are viewing this issue and would like to indicate your interest, please use the 👍 reaction on the issue description to upvote this issue. We also welcome additional use case descriptions. Thanks again! |
This looks promising. However, we'll need some time to investigate the behavior further. According to the documentation:
I’ll be looking into the details of conditional writes to ensure they align with the current S3 backend user experience. |
Prototyping of S3-native state locking: #35661 |
We aim to release support for S3-native state locking in v1.10. See #35661 for reference. |
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. |
Terraform Version
Use Cases
I'd like to be able to use a S3 remote backend without requiring DynamoDB to handle the state locking. This should now be possible given the announcement that S3 now supports conditional writes.
Attempted Solutions
n/a
Proposal
Terraform should support locking the remote state directly on S3 if DynamoDB isn't configured via the if-none-match header.
References
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: