A service processes messages from an Amazon SQS queue. Sometimes the worker finishes the business logic but does not delete the message before the visibility timeout expires, so the message is delivered again. Which two changes improve resilience and reduce the impact of duplicate processing? Select two.

Switch from SQS to Amazon SNS for reliable buffering.

SNS is a pub/sub notification service, not a durable work queue for buffering and retrying tasks. It does not provide the same queue semantics as SQS for worker processing.

Shorten the queue retention period so messages expire quickly.

Reducing retention does not prevent duplicates. It increases the chance of message loss if workers are unavailable long enough for messages to expire before processing completes.

Disable retries in the consumer application.

Retries are often necessary for transient failures such as throttling or brief downstream outages. Disabling retries makes the system less resilient and can turn temporary problems into permanent data loss.

What does this SAA-C03 question test?

Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.

What is the correct answer to this question?

The correct answer is: Make the message handler idempotent. — SQS is an at-least-once delivery system, so duplicate delivery must be expected and designed for. Making the handler idempotent prevents repeated messages from causing repeated business effects. Setting a visibility timeout that exceeds normal processing time reduces the chance that a message becomes visible again before the worker has completed and deleted it. SNS does not replace SQS as a durable worker queue. Shortening message retention risks losing work rather than improving resilience. Disabling retries makes transient downstream problems more likely to fail permanently, which is the opposite of resilient design.

What should I do if I get this SAA-C03 question wrong?

Then try more questions from the same exam bank and focus on understanding why the wrong options are tempting.