Open thomasd3 opened 3 years ago
@thomasd3 do you still have a need for it? Would you consider submitting a PR?
~I've done zero research - it that simply an option when creating?~ I see based on this article that there are two levels - item level and table level. Do you have a specific need for one or the other in your context ?
The creation lifecycle will receive some love in #43; Perhaps providing a ?customize : CreateTableRequest -> unit
option might be sufficient if you want to do it at table level? Would you need to be able to UpdateTable
to reconfigure it?
At item level, I suspect that it can be specified by providing a field with the well-known name on your record without any code changes, but there may be some rough edges (again, if you or anyone has specific ideas or requirements, please feel free to jump in)
@bartelink we've totally dropped the use of DynamoDB in our system, so I haven't touched that system in many months now.
Thanks for the update - that's no problem
With the way the Verify/Initialize/Provision APIs in https://github.com/fsprojects/FSharp.AWS.DynamoDB/pull/43 now expose an optional customize
callback will unblock anyone with TTL requirements as:
Therefore I have updated that PR to close this one - let me know if you disagree @samritchie
If anyone encounters any requirements not served, please feel free to discuss here and/or raise a new specific issue with more details on the exact needs.
I'd expect TTL to be defined using an attribute on the appropriate record field, this is more consistent with the way we define GSIs etc. It’s going to involve some work at the pickle layer as it needs to be stored as epoch time rather than the string we convert DateTimeOffset
s to by default - this is going to be very intolerant of adding/removing the TTL attribute from fields.
I'll reopen this one pending a reasonable design. As I see it the options are:
TtlExpiry
type
Any plans to implement the TimeToLive feature of DynamoDB?