Code review comment for lp:~gl-az/percona-server/BT-23310-bug1218664-5.5

    - It is suspicious that we want to include PERCONA_SCHEMA. Why?
      Shouldn't it be treated as user table for our purposes?
      Also wouldn't it provide a hole around schema enforcement if
      the server is missing PERCONA_SCHEMA schema, thus user is free
      to create it? Such scenario is exactly how the MTR testcase
      currently works, isn't it?

    - Assuming PERCONA_SCHEMA is not desired, then there is no need
      to maintain our own list of special schemas (also what about
      case sensitivity?) There is get_table_category(), which will
      return TABLE_CATEGORY_INFORMATION for I_S,
      TABLE_CATEGORY_PERFROMANCE for P_S, TABLE_CATEGORY_SYSTEM for
      mysql, TABLE_CATEGORY_LOG for slow/general logs if tables, and
      TABLE_CATEGORY_USER. Thus it seems that we can simply call
      get_table_category() and enforce storage engine only if it
      returned TABLE_CATEGORY_USER. Note that it would cover log
      tables as well, which we haven't discussed previously, but for
      which SE enforcement is probably a bug too.

    - Assuming PERCONA_SCHEMA is not desired, an MTR testcase becomes
      more complicated. I'd look if it is possible to test through
      the log tables, if possible.