If http://www.rabbitmq.com/dlx.html is up-to-date, the absence of mentioning a removed ttl from the headers would seem to confirm this bug.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Derek Greer <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the behavior when queue Q1 is configured with a dead letter > exchange DLE1 with a bound queue DLQ1 and a message is published to Q1 with > a per-message TTL which expires? > > What I'm observing is that a message with a TTL of 500 milliseconds will > live in Q1 and then be moved to DLQ1 where it subsequently is removed after > 500 milliseconds. I can see how this would happen given dead letter queues > are just regular queues, but if my observations are correct then these 2 > features don't play well together (i.e. Per-Message TTL + Dead Letter > queues). If this is the case, what is the prescribed way to dead letter a > message with a message level TTL? > > Derek > > > -- ___________________________________________ Derek Greer [email protected] | @derekgreer <http://twitter.com/derekgreer> lostechies.com <http://derekgreer.lostechies.com/> | freshbrewedcode.com<http://derekgreer.freshbrewedcode.com> | aspiringcraftsman.com ___________________________________________ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rabbitmq-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rabbitmq-discuss?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
