You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Taking in the queue name instead of its url is an unfortunate choice, as it takes another SQS API call to figure out the queue url from its name, and this API call is covered by a dedicated permission (sqs:GetQueueUrl).
It would be great to see the change that allows code to take in the preexisting queue url directly instead of its name, and send/receive/delete messages on such a queue relying only on these limited IAM permissions:
sqs:ReceiveMessage
sqs:DeleteMessage
sqs:DeleteMessageBatch
sqs:ChangeMessageVisibility
sqs:ChangeMessageVisibilityBatch
sqs:SendMessage
sqs:SendMessageBatch
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Taking in the queue name instead of its url is an unfortunate choice, as it takes another SQS API call to figure out the queue url from its name, and this API call is covered by a dedicated permission (sqs:GetQueueUrl).
It would be great to see the change that allows code to take in the preexisting queue url directly instead of its name, and send/receive/delete messages on such a queue relying only on these limited IAM permissions:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: