# PostgreSQL 13 update

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/postgresql-13-update/172563>\
**Category:** Announcements\
**Created:** [December 7, 2020, 10:00pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/postgresql-13-update/172563 "2020-12-07T22:00:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 133

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fitzy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/fitzy/32/192549_2.png) [@fitzy](https://meta.discourse.org/u/fitzy)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2023, 10:53pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/postgresql-13-update/172563/133 "2023-09-13T22:53:42Z")

</div>

> [@helmi](#):
>
> For one I got the message that these two indexes couldn’t be reindexed in concurrent mode…
> 
> ```plaintext
> WARNING: cannot reindex invalid index "public.index_post_timings_on_user_id_ccnew" concurrently, skipping
> WARNING: cannot reindex invalid index "public.post_timings_unique_ccnew" concurrently, skipping
> 
> ```

These indexes are from when a concurrent reindex has failed previously.

When Postgres is performing a concurrent reindex, the new index is created with a `_ccnew` suffix. Once the new index is rebuilt, the old one is replaced with the new one. If a concurrent reindex fails, the temporary `_ccnew` index is not deleted.

It is safe to drop these temporary indexes manually with [`DROP INDEX IF EXISTS ...`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-dropindex.html)

As for the index sizes, the 30-50% reduction on the top four is impressive!

If I’m reading correctly, the `user_visits` index dropped from 13GB down to 503MB, \<5% of the original size 🤯

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/postgresql-13-update/172563)._