remove autoanalyze corner case

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 10:55 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:

(new thread from [0])

On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 02:13:16PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:

* I noticed that if autovacuum decides to force a vacuum for
anti-wraparound purposes, it might also decide to analyze the table even if
autovacuum is disabled for it. AFAICT this is accidental, but since it's
behaved this way since commit 48188e1621 (2006) [0], I am slightly worried
that this bug may have become a feature. In 0002, I separated this edge
case in the code and added a comment, and I intend to start a new thread
about removing it.

hmm yeah, I think this just needs to be documented clearly. I always
thought it was expected for auto-analyze to run in this case, and I don't
see why it shouldn't. If this needs to be clarified in docs, we should
do that in a separate discussion.

Well, autoanalyze only runs in this case if autovacuum is disabled via the
table's autovacuum_enabled reloption and _not_ disabled via the autovacuum
or track_counts GUCs. I think this is pretty clearly unintentional, as I
can find no mention in the code, archives, or docs. And unless I'm missing
something, it's completely unnecessary. So IMHO we should just remove it.

[0] /messages/by-id/CAA5RZ0sCRjH3xkHFdSXnKysdMZXFyaS_094+K-O_rr4Fkmwc=Q@mail.gmail.com

AFAICS, near misses on wraparound in and of itself have no correlation
with statistical changes in your data, so I'd agree it isn't
necessary, and the fact that it behaves differently in this more
narrow case than it would in the more general case, when these two
cases are (as far as I've ever known) supposed to behave the same way,
I'd be +1 to remove this.

Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net

On 2026-Apr-04, Robert Treat wrote:

AFAICS, near misses on wraparound in and of itself have no correlation
with statistical changes in your data, so I'd agree it isn't
necessary, and the fact that it behaves differently in this more
narrow case than it would in the more general case, when these two
cases are (as far as I've ever known) supposed to behave the same way,
I'd be +1 to remove this.

Yeah, that matches my impression. +1 to remove it.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La verdad no siempre es bonita, pero el hambre de ella sí"

AFAICS, near misses on wraparound in and of itself have no correlation
with statistical changes in your data, so I'd agree it isn't
necessary, and the fact that it behaves differently in this more
narrow case than it would in the more general case, when these two
cases are (as far as I've ever known) supposed to behave the same way,
I'd be +1 to remove this.

Yeah, that matches my impression. +1 to remove it.

That is fine with me also.

The patch LGTM.

--
Sami