Peter Geoghegan <pg@xxxxxxx> writes: > Why do the first and the twentieth executions of the query have almost > identical "buffers shared/read" numbers? That seems odd. It's repeat execution of the same query, so that doesn't seem odd to me. This last set of numbers suggests that there's some issue with the parallel execution infrastructure in particular, though I don't see what it would be. Doesn't execParallel wait for the workers to exit before the leader finishes its query? If so, how is there any persistent state that would interfere with a later query? regards, tom lane
