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

Add ExistingResourcePolicy support to restore API #4842

Closed
shubham-pampattiwar opened this issue Apr 18, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4613 or #4628
Closed

Add ExistingResourcePolicy support to restore API #4842

shubham-pampattiwar opened this issue Apr 18, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #4613 or #4628
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@shubham-pampattiwar
Copy link
Collaborator

Describe the problem/challenge you have

Velero currently does not support any restore policy on kubernetes resources that are already present in-cluster. Velero skips over the restore of the resource if it already exists in the namespace/cluster irrespective of whether the resource present in the restore is the same or different from the one present on the cluster. It is desired that Velero gives the option to the user to decide whether or not the resource in backup should overwrite the one present in the cluster.

Describe the solution you'd like
It is desired to add the functionality to specify whether or not to overwrite the instance of resource in cluster with the one present in backup during the restore process. This can be achieved via introduction of ExistingResourcePolicy to restore API for Kubernetes resources.

Anything else you would like to add:
Related issues: #4066

Vote on this issue!

This is an invitation to the Velero community to vote on issues, you can see the project's top voted issues listed here.
Use the "reaction smiley face" up to the right of this comment to vote.

  • 👍 for "The project would be better with this feature added"
  • 👎 for "This feature will not enhance the project in a meaningful way"
@reasonerjt
Copy link
Contributor

Reopening as this PR is not merged:
#4628

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment