zlacker

>>mpweih+(OP)
One important drawback of SQS is that it's eventually consistent, you can read the same message twice from different workers. Nevertheless we keep using it with additional checks when it's critical, it's still the cheapest solution by maintenance.

>>varela+Z9
> you can read the same message twice from different workers

If you have a short visibility timeout that it appears back on the queue before you delete it... Sure.

>>philli+bb
No. By default SQS uses `at-least-once delivery` system. It's distributed and when you connect to API one SQS node that you working with could have different state comparing to another, so you may fetch the same message twice by 2 separate workers even with big visibility timeout.