Thanks for the PR, could you try to resolve the conflict?

Hi @hannes,
I’ve resolved the conflicts and ran all unit tests locally — all tests passed.

Could you run the formatter, too please? make format-fix

Could you run the formatter, too please? make format-fix

Oh sorry. My bad.

Hi @hannes,
I ran make format-fix inside a virtual environment (with black>=24 installed and clang-format 11.0.1), but it didn’t change any files.

I think you may be missing cmake-format

Hi @hannes,
I missed building the extensions earlier — fixed that now. Rebuilt with all extensions and ran the full unit test suite; all tests passed. Verified my formatting environment (screenshot attached).

Hi @hannes,
I realized that my last local build didn’t include the benchmarks, so I missed this compile error. I’ve now rebuilt with -DBUILD_BENCHMARKS=1 and all relevant extensions, fixed the missing include in the benchmark build, and confirmed that all unit tests and benchmarks compile and run successfully.

Thanks for your patience — still learning my way around the DuckDB build configuration.

Hi @hannes @Tmonster,
CI reports a large extension size regression on this PR (https://github.com/duckdb/duckdb/actions/runs/17428851784/job/51108588620).
I only touched includes. Before I spend more time on the Windows fixes: should I proceed with this PR, or would you prefer I close it due to the size check?
Happy to adjust if there’s a recommended path.

Thanks!

Hi @lnkuiper,
thank you for picking this up—much appreciated.

Hi @lnkuiper — quick question: do we know what caused the extension size regression here? I only touched includes and I’m curious for future PRs. Thanks!

@Schwarf I don't see any regressions in CI: https://github.com/duckdb/duckdb/actions/runs/19294234522/job/55172234213?pr=18422#step:7:1

Run python scripts/regression_test_extension_size.py --old 'duckdb/build/release/extension' --new build/release/extension --expect json,parquet,tpch,tpcds
 - checking 'parquet': old size=15648134, new_size=15648134
 - checking 'json': old size=34387558, new_size=34387558
 - checking 'tpcds': old size=20085502, new_size=20085502
 - checking 'core_functions': old size=21544070, new_size=21544070
 - checking 'tpch': old size=18794078, new_size=18794078

All extensions passed the check!

Hi @lnkuiper,
Thanks. I was just curios, because in the beginning of Oct regressions made the build fail see comment.

Now that this PR is merged: would it be useful if I open more small cleanup PRs that only remove unused headers, or would you prefer a different approach?

Now that this PR is merged: would it be useful if I open more small cleanup PRs that only remove unused headers, or would you prefer a different approach?

Removing unused headers, and using forward declarations where possible, would be nice. This can help speed up compilation time. I'm not opposed to more PRs that do this. Please wait with sending a PR until CI is green on your fork, then the CI in this repository doesn't have to work as hard :)