Why not just use Volumes or Spaces for this?

Stupid as a man asian bots

Huge bump. Unable to store time-series data in my database.

Any update on this?

Duplicate marked as Planned: https://ideas.digitalocean.com/ideas/DBAAS-I-49

Please implement, I'm on a clock with this. I can't justify doubling my cost for doubling my storage.

If this isn't implemented soon I'm going to have to revert to a self-managed solution...

I see this is request is repeated, so I'll copy my comment in support of this: Not all use-cases are I/O intensive enough to justify an upgrade in the higher tiers. Sometimes more indexing is enoguh, which of course requires more disk space. I understand the complexity of having volumes attached/detached from the database cluster, though I can imagine this being implemented with tablespaces (at least in Postgres)

An absolutely essential feature for production environments. Blown away this was not implemented when managed databases went live - a total non-starter. 

+1

agree with Iban Eguia, it would be cool to be able to attach volumes to managed databases

Would be nice to have something like the "block storage" for databases.

This is absolutely essential. We need to store data on the order of many TBs (6TB+), but even if we were to use the 1.12TB database, we don't need 64GB of RAM and 16 CPUs. It'd be great to be able to provision additional storage on top of what the plan allocates.