Description:
5.0.36:
mysql> CHECK TABLE INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS;
+----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+
| Table | Op | Msg_type | Msg_text |
+----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+
| INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS | check | status | OK |
+----------------------------+-------+----------+----------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
mysql> CHECK TABLE INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS;
+----------------------------+-------+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Table | Op | Msg_type | Msg_text |
+----------------------------+-------+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS | check | note | The storage engine for the table doesn't support check |
+----------------------------+-------+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
5.0.83 / 5.1.42:
mysql> CHECK TABLE INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS;
+----------------------------+-------+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Table | Op | Msg_type | Msg_text |
+----------------------------+-------+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| information_schema.columns | check | note | The storage engine for the table doesn't support check |
+----------------------------+-------+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
How to repeat:
CHECK TABLE INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS;
Suggested fix:
How about simply reporting 'status OK' for INFORMATION_SCHEMA views? Normal views report this 'status OK' as well:
mysql> USE ROELT;
Database changed
mysql> CREATE VIEW T1 AS SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.08 sec)
mysql> CHECK TABLE T1;
+----------+-------+----------+----------+
| Table | Op | Msg_type | Msg_text |
+----------+-------+----------+----------+
| roelt.t1 | check | status | OK |
+----------+-------+----------+----------+
'status OK' would also be more user-friendly then the current note.
Also note the following bugs:
bug #13346 (note that some tables give OK)
bug #42563
bug #28664
