Sorry - the weren’t really shuffled. I don’t know exactly if they were moved to the back of the queue or just held until their redelivery delay expired and then re-injected into the queue. We didn’t test enough to make that determination - we stopped as soon as we discovered that delayed redelivery on the broker side broke FIFO.
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 9:59 PM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > When you say "shuffled", do you simply mean that the message went to the > back of the queue when it got sent back for broker-side redelivery? Or do > you mean that actual randomization of all messages on the queue occurred? > > Tim > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Quinn Stevenson <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com >> wrote: > >> No - we weren’t using selectors. The only “special” feature we were using >> was Virtual Topics - we saw the order shuffled on the queues created for >> the Virtual Topic Consumers. >> >> >>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:20 PM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: >>> >>> @RuralHunter, same question as to the OP: were you using selectors? Was >> it >>> possible that no consumer with a selector matching those messages was >>> online, and then one came online and consumed the message? >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:31 AM, RuralHunter <ruralhun...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I reported the same problem for 5.13.4. >>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-stuck-in- >>>> queue-td4720713.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User- >>>> f2341805.html >>>> >> >>
