Replication styles: With pull replication, is synchronization typically less disruptive because each subscriber pulls updates when needed rather than receiving pushes on the publisher’s schedule?

Introduction / Context:
Database replication can be configured as push (publisher initiates) or pull (subscriber initiates). This question evaluates whether pull replication tends to be less disruptive by letting each site choose when to fetch changes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Subscribers have local workload patterns and maintenance windows.
• Network conditions and SLAs vary by site.
• Consistency goals permit scheduled latency.

Concept / Approach:
In pull replication, the subscriber controls when to synchronize, reducing unexpected contention and allowing alignment with local off-peak hours. This contrasts with push replication, where the publisher pushes changes on its timetable, potentially interrupting subscribers during busy periods. While details depend on platform, the general operational effect is that pull is more subscriber-friendly and can be less disruptive.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Observe system metrics before and after switching from push to pull on busy subscribers; reduced locking, CPU spikes, or I/O contention during business hours confirms the benefit.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• “Incorrect because pull causes more locks” is not generally true; locks are tied to apply operations, not direction of initiation.
• Restricting correctness to snapshots or LANs is unnecessary; scheduling benefits apply broadly across replication types and networks.

Common Pitfalls:
Allowing excessive latency that violates freshness requirements, or misconfiguring agent credentials/tokens so pulls fail silently. Implement monitoring and alerts.

Final Answer:
Correct