Обсуждение: BUG #14451: PostgreSQL server on iscsi disks
VGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBidWcgaGFzIGJlZW4gbG9nZ2VkIG9uIHRoZSB3ZWJz aXRlOgoKQnVnIHJlZmVyZW5jZTogICAgICAxNDQ1MQpMb2dnZWQgYnk6ICAg ICAgICAgIFRpbSBLbGlja3MKRW1haWwgYWRkcmVzczogICAgICB0aW0ua2xp Y2tzQGdtYWlsLmNvbQpQb3N0Z3JlU1FMIHZlcnNpb246IDkuNi4xCk9wZXJh dGluZyBzeXN0ZW06ICAgUkhFTCA3LnggYW5kIGl0cyBkZXJpdmF0aXZlcwpE ZXNjcmlwdGlvbjogICAgICAgIAoKSGVqIGFsbCwNCg0KSSBqdXN0IGluc3Rh bGxlZCBhIFJIRUwgNy4zIHNlcnZlciBhbmQgaW5zdGFsbGVkIHRoZSBsYXRl c3QgOS42LjEgcnBtcyBmcm9tCnlvdXIgZG93bmxvYWQgYXJlYS4NCg0KQWZ0 ZXIgdGhpcywgSSBoYXZlIGluaXRpYWxpemVkIHRoZSBkYXRhYmFzZSwgc2h1 dCBpdCBkb3duIGFuZCBtb3ZlZCB0aGUgDQovdmFyL2xpYi9wZ3NxbC85LjYg Zm9sZGVyIHRvIGFuIGlzY3NpIHZvbHVtZSBhdHRhY2hlZCB0byB0aGUgc2Vy dmVyLg0KDQpBZnRlciBhIHJlYm9vdCwgdGhlIHBvc3RncmVzcWwgc2VydmVy IGlzIG5vdCBjb21pbmcgdXAsIGFsdGhvdWdoIHRoZQpmaWxlc3lzdGVtIGhh cyBiZWVuIG1vdW50ZWQuDQoNCkkgZGlnZ2VkIGEgYml0IGludG8gdGhpcyBp c3N1ZSBhbmQgZm91bmQgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiBhbmQgbWF5YmUgYSBwb3NzaWJs ZQoiYnVnIi4NCg0KSGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgbm9ybWFsIHBvc3RncmVzcWwtOS42 LnNlcnZpY2UgZmlsZToNCi4NCi4NCi4NCltVbml0XQ0KRGVzY3JpcHRpb249 UG9zdGdyZVNRTCA5LjYgZGF0YWJhc2Ugc2VydmVyDQpBZnRlcj1zeXNsb2cu dGFyZ2V0DQpBZnRlcj1uZXR3b3JrLnRhcmdldA0KLg0KLg0KLg0KDQpJIGhh dmUgbm93IGNoYW5nZWQgaXQgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSByZW1vdGUtZnMudGFyZ2V0 LCBhcyBmb2xsb3dzOg0KLg0KLg0KLg0KW1VuaXRdDQpEZXNjcmlwdGlvbj1Q b3N0Z3JlU1FMIDkuNiBkYXRhYmFzZSBzZXJ2ZXINCkFmdGVyPXN5c2xvZy50 YXJnZXQNCkFmdGVyPW5ldHdvcmsudGFyZ2V0DQpBZnRlcj1yZW1vdGUtZnMu dGFyZ2V0DQouDQouDQouDQoNCk5vdywgdGhlIGRhdGFiYXNlIGlzIGNvbWlu ZyB1cCBhcyBzeXN0ZW1kIGtub3dzLCB0aGF0IHRoZSBwb3N0Z3Jlc3FsIHNl cnZpY2UKaGFzIHRvIHdhaXQgZm9yIHRoZSByZW1vdGUtZnMudGFyZ2V0IHRv IGZpbmlzaC4NCg0KQXMgbWVudGlvbmVkLCBJIGFtIG5vdCBzdXJlIGlmIHRo aXMgaXMgYSBidWcgb3Igbm90LCBidXQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgZ3JlYXQKaWYg eW91IGNvdWxkIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIHJlbW90ZS1mcy50YXJnZXQgZGVwZW5k ZW5jeSBpbnRvIHRoZQpwb3N0Z3Jlc3FsLTkuNi5zZXJ2aWNlIGZpbGUuDQoN CkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcywNClRpbS4KCg==
tim.klicks@gmail.com writes: > As mentioned, I am not sure if this is a bug or not, but it would be great > if you could include the remote-fs.target dependency into the > postgresql-9.6.service file. I'm fairly certain this was an intentional omission. The normal configuration does not put the database on a remote filesystem, so adding this dependency would simply delay database startup longer than necessary, and maybe even uselessly stop it from coming up at all if there are problems on some remote filesystem. The expectation is that if you rearrange things to store the DB remotely, you should adjust the service file to match. (Perhaps that could be documented better, though.) regards, tom lane