P: Allow Catalog to be stored on a networked drive.

Can't believe in 2019 I can't use a catalog on a nas with 2 computers...not concurrently of course. I have to use synctoy and stuff like that with an external ssd to sync the catalogs and this has created way more problems and data loss than the risk of working live on a local nas or file server.
I wonder if CaptureOne allows that, other than being much faster on 4k screens

I have over a 100,000 student portraits and there are 5 people at our company that need access to the Lightroom catalog. We are missing a seamless way to collaborate on a shared company-wide catalog that we can store on our NAS.

You absolute genius! For some reason it was set on "Lock" after I received the update. I hadn't thought of checking the lock option since my other tab was movable. 
Thank you very much!!

Sounds like you somehow turned on "Lock Workspace"

Go to Window > Workspace > Lock Workspace to uncheck it.

Sounds like you somehow turned on "Lock Workspace"

Go to Window > Workspace > Lock Workspace to uncheck it.

Sounds like you somehow turned on "Lock Workspace"

Go to Window > Workspace > Lock Workspace to uncheck it.

Getting ever more fed up with Adobe products.. So I just bought a Synology NAS and was looking forward to taking every bit of data off my laptop. Instead of focusing on learning to use Lightroom I now have to fiddle about with my Catalogues and data. Like other users have commented before me, I would like to keep catalogues and photos on my NAS. With the amount of money we are all paying , this feature should have been up and running within 6 months - and I am being generous. Hello guys, this is 2019 coming on 2020! if necessary re-write your blooming database using another engine, ideally one that works and is flexible enough to accommodate a NAS. Failing that, ask someone to get off his chair and contact Synology and QNAS and ask them to do something at their end to make it work. Or ideally , do both things at once! As it is, I am on the verge of abandoning this leaky ship.

I've been running LR with catalogs on a NAS for years without problems.  I've posted the scripts I use to manage this here: GitHub - kgorlen/lightroom: Windows bat and documentation for storing lightroom catalogs on NAS

According to SMB and SQLite specs, this is intended to work, so problems are the result of hardware failures and/or software bugs.  Since accessing a network drive involves more of both than when accessing an internal or external drive, the risk of catalog corruption is a bit greater, but that's why making backups is important.

Adobe could improve LR by (1) providing/hosting a list of compatible NAS products, and (2) allowing previews to be stored separately from catalogs so they could reside on a local drive with catalogs on a network drive.

"This is a different topic because I'm not interested in sharing the catalog on more than one computer"

Your use-case is different than most of the other requests here, but I think your post got moved to this topic because it requires the same technical ability, placing a catalog on a network drive.  Even with just one user, the underlying SQLite database technology used by LR doesn't work on many network-attached storage devices (because of bugs in the locking implementations on the NAS devices).

"The 4 bay drive dock is connected via network cable"

A USB 3.1 connection, if your computer supports it, would be more than fast enough for a fast SSD and twice as fast as a 5 Gbps Ethernet network cable (a USB 3.0 connection would be about as fast).

Barring that, you could put the catalog on an internal or external drive and everything else, including previews, on network drives.  Many people report success in locating the previews subfolder on a different drive from the catalog folder using symbolic links and junctions: 
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/how-to-move-previews-from-ssd-to-hdd.24282/

The .lrcat catalog file itself takes relatively little space -- about 1 GB for 32K photos -- so it is more feasible to keep it on an internal drive.  

The received wisdom is that the catalog file should be on a very fast drive for the best performance. But in my own testing, I've observed that the .lrcat file, being relatively small, gets cached in memory by the operating system, so the speed of its disk is relatively unimportant (as long as you have enough memory -- your system has only 12 GB, so Windows may not cache a 5 GB .lrcat file in its entirety).

Previews are much smaller than their corresponding masters, so even slower disks have more than enough bandwidth to transfer previews faster than you can view them.  What matters perhaps more is the latency (how fast they can access a new file), and here direct-attached drives almost always outperform network-attached drives, which usually has much higher latency.