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
Making the processing of a message idempotent is the ideal way to handle that limitation

>>lclark+yb
That's not always possible. Thus a big no-no for SQS if that's what you need. Concluding: SQS cannot replace RabbitMQ in all usecases.

>>cies+Ff
Exactly once delivery =/= exactly once processing.