Option D is correct because the problem is lock contention between ETL writes and analytical reads on the same Redshift tables. AWS documents that table locks can block both reads and writes, and that Redshift data sharing lets you share live data across Redshift clusters and workgroups without manually moving or copying the data. Because the shared data is live, consumer users see the most up-to-date information as soon as it is updated. Separating ETL and analytics onto different Redshift clusters while using data sharing is therefore the cleanest way to isolate workloads and still provide consistent data views.

Option A reduces contention only by changing schedules and does not fully solve concurrent peak-hour conflicts. Option B is not correct because Redshift federated queries are read-only against external sources and do not provide a Redshift “read replica” design for this case. Option C does not address the locking problem on the dimension tables that ETL is updating. The official Redshift guidance and service capabilities point to workload isolation plus data sharing as the best fix. This also matches the exam guide’s emphasis on choosing architectures that maintain performance and consistency without unnecessary copying.