←back to thread

115 points nonfamous | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nemothekid ◴[] No.44567382[source]
If I'm reading this correctly, then AWS Support dropped the ball here but this isn't a bug in lambda. This is the documented behavior of the lambda runtime.

The document is long, and the examples seem contrived, so anyone is free to correct me but as I understand it the lambda didn't crash, after you returned 201, your lambda instance was put to sleep. You aren't guaranteed that any code will remain running after your lambda "ends". I am not sure why AWS Support was unable to communicate this OP.

If you are using Lambda with a function URL, you aren't guaranteed that anything after you return your http response remains running. I believe Lambda has some callbacks/signals you can listen to, to ensure your function properly cleans up before the Lambda is frozen, but if you want the lambda to return as fast as possible it seems you are better off having your service publish to an SQS queue instead.

replies(5): >>44567412 #>>44567432 #>>44567463 #>>44567479 #>>44567534 #
1. cldcntrl ◴[] No.44567534[source]
> If I'm reading this correctly, then AWS Support dropped the ball here but this isn't a bug in lambda. This is the documented behavior of the lambda runtime.

AWS Support is generally ineffective unless you're stuck on something very simple at a higher level of the platform (e.g. misunderstanding an SDK API).

Even with their higher tier support - where you can summon a subject matter expert via Chime almost instantly - they're often clueless, and will confidently pass you misleading or incorrect information just to get you off the line. I've successfully used them as a very expensive rubber ducky, but that's about it.