It will be true because of the "within a visibility timeout" right? Of course that makes the claim way less interesting.
I took a peek at the code and it looks like their visibility timeout is pretty much a lock on a message. So it's not exactly once for any meaningful definition, but it does prevent the same message from being consumed multiple times within the visibility timeout.
I took a peek at the code and it looks like their visibility timeout is pretty much a lock on a message. So it's not exactly once for any meaningful definition, but it does prevent the same message from being consumed multiple times within the visibility timeout.