Thanks for looking into adding GEOGRAPHY support! I think it comes down to how hard it would be to swap the built-in GEOGRAPHY with a future Calcite GEOGRAPHY. If we keep the implementation around GEOMETRY slim and only add basic functions, it may be feasible to skip Calcite for now. Modeling GEOGRAPHY as defined in the Iceberg table spec looks like a pretty safe bet.
-Max On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 2:41 PM David Chaava via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > Just bringing the GEOGRAPHY FLIP back to the list in case it got buried. > The discussion has been quiet for a while, and we’d still appreciate the > community’s feedback on the proposal and the open implementation-path > question. > > > If you have a chance, please share your thoughts on the proposal. Any > feedback on what we should address to move the discussion forward would be > very helpful. > > > Thanks, > David > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 8:03 PM David Chaava <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > We would like to ask for help moving the Geography type support FLIP > > forward. > > > > The discussion has been open for some time, and we have now prepared the > > first PR for the core GEOGRAPHY logical type support so the proposal can be > > reviewed against concrete implementation work [1]. > > > > This PR focuses on the base logical type support and wiring, while keeping > > unrelated dependency and format-specific changes separate to make the > > review easier. > > > > Best regards, > > David > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/28740 > >
