Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Bruce Momjian (pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Would you show an example of the invalid value this is trying to avoid?
> Well, the way I discovered the problem was by sending a timestamp in
> double format when the server was expecting one in int64 format.
Most of the time, though, this sort of error would still yield a valid
value that just failed to represent the timestamp value you wanted.
I'm unsure that a range check is going to help much.
regards, tom lane