A team runs a primary database with a synchronous replica and argues: 'We don't need backups — the replica is our backup.' Why is this reasoning dangerous?
- aA replica only serves reads, so you can never copy the lost data back out of it
- bAn accidental DELETE or corruption is replicated to the standby too, destroying both copies✓
- cReplication lags so far behind the primary that the standby never holds usable recent data
- dA replica keeps its data in a compressed on-disk format that cannot be turned back into a database
Explanation:Replication copies changes faithfully — including destructive ones. A bad DELETE, an UPDATE with the wrong WHERE, or corruption propagates to the replica in seconds, so both copies are lost together. A backup is a point-in-time copy you can go back to; a replica is not. Reads (a), lag (c), and storage format (d) are not the core reason.