Hi hackers,
I'm writing an extension that employs `object_access_hook`. I want to monitor the table creation event and record the mapping between `reloid` and `relfilenode` during a transaction. Here's my code snippet,
```
static void
my_object_access_hook(ObjectAccessType access,
Oid classId,
Oid objectId,
int subId, void *arg)
{
do_some_checks(access, classId, ...);
// open the relation using relation_open
rel = relation_open(objectId, AccessShareLock);
// record the reloid and relfilenode.
record(objectId, rel->rd_node);
relation_close(rel, AccessShareLock);
}
```
However, when I replace the relation_open with try_relation_open, the relation cannot be opened. I've checked the source code, it looks that try_relation_open has an additional checker which causes the relation_open and try_relation_open behavior different:
```
Relation
try_relation_open(Oid relationId, LOCKMODE lockmode)
{
...
/*
* Now that we have the lock, probe to see if the relation really exists
* or not.
*/
if (!SearchSysCacheExists1(RELOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(relationId)))
{
/* Release useless lock */
if (lockmode != NoLock)
UnlockRelationOid(relationId, lockmode);
return NULL;
}
...
}
```
My question is, is it a deliberate design that makes try_relation_open and relation_open different? Shall we mention it in the comment of try_relation_open OR adding the checker to relation_open?
