[rabbitmq-discuss] Resource alarms in 3.1 seems to block operations other than basic.publish

Mon May 13 18:58:20 BST 2013

On 13/05/13 18:45, Tim Watson wrote:
> ** but at this point, the exercise is moot, because the queue is empty
> so 'blocking' is the expected state. Sorry I didn't check on this with
> you sooner - I didn't realise I needed to look at that when I got
> started as I wasn't clear on the implication of "blocking" as the
> consumer state. The consumer stays in this state of course, since there
> are no messages in the queue.

As an aside, 'blocking' has nothing to do with the emptiness of queues. 
Or consuming. It indicates that the connection WILL be blocked (and 
transition to the 'blocked' state) IF/WHEN the client publishes on it.

Matthias.