SQL Server Agent on AWS/RDS


There is quite a bit of SQL Server management surface area that is not available when running on AWS/RDS.


Surface Area

For instance with SQL Server Agent :-

  1. SQL Server Agent
    • Category
      • Add new category
        • API
          • sp_add_category
        • Error
          • Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Procedure msdb.dbo.sp_add_category
          • The EXECUTE permission was denied on the object ‘sp_add_category’, database ‘msdb’, schema ‘dbo’.
    • Job Step
      • Fetch Job Steps
        • API
          • SELECT * FROM msdb.dbo.sysjobsteps
        • Error
          • Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Line 71
          • The SELECT permission was denied on the object ‘sysjobsteps’, database ‘msdb’, schema ‘dbo’.



In terms of scripting, SQL Server Agent is not accessible in an AWS/RDS Environment.

Natalie Rahhal :- The plight of girls who have a male twin



The plight of girls who have a male twin: Report suggests they earn less, are less likely to marry and are less fertile due to testosterone exposure in the womb

  1. Last year, nearly 132,000 pairs of twins were born in the US
  2. Researchers have observed that when one twin is male and one is female, the female tends to face certain challenges later in life
  3. One theory is that females may be exposed to more testosterone when they share the womb with developing boy twin
  4. A new study of Norwegian twins found that female twins with twin brothers earned less, were more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to marry
    They also had higher infertility rates
  5. This was true even when the male twin died shortly after birth, suggesting nature – not nurture – was at play

Girls with fraternal male twins may earn less and be less likely to thrive in society, new research suggests.

Researchers in Norway and at Northwestern University posit that exposure to their brother’s testosterone in the womb may damage the female twin, resulting in poorer cognitive functioning and fertility.

Though studies on humans vary, it may be that this testosterone exposure alters the way females develop, leading to more masculine traits that could explain the lower probability that these girls find partners and marry later in life.

Understanding these outcomes is more important now than ever, the researchers say, as IVF has let to a near two-fold increase in the number of twins born annually.

Developing in a womb shared with a male may mean that testosterone exposure leads female fraternal twins to be less fertile, earn less and be more at risk of dropping out of school

The disparities between any man and any woman in the US (and abroad) are clear and undeniable.

Men make more but die earlier.

Women are now more likely to get a college degree but have poorer access to healthcare.

The list goes on.

But twins share a rare influence on one another, beginning in the womb – and it’s becoming increasingly clear that even between twins, the female may be at a disadvantage.

Certain patterns and trends in male-female pairs have long been observed, including some worrying possible disadvantages for the girl half of the pair.

A number of studies have tried to examine how sharing a womb might affect twins, especially if they are of different sexes.
Though unproven, the ‘twin testosterone-transfer hypothesis’ suggests that the roots these divergent paths might be traced back to male hormones that a female twin is exposed to when developing alongside a boy.

Fetuses develop in an amniotic sac swirling with nutrients, antibodies and hormones and get their blood supply from their mother – and twin fetuses share this fluid and blood supply with one another, too.

The mother’s levels of both estrogen and testosterone – the female and male sex hormones, respectively – increase steadily over the course of pregnancy, whether she is carrying a boy, girl, both or multiples.

But the concentration of those hormones does differ in the amniotic fluid.

So, the theory is that, in order to support the development the boy she’s sharing a womb with, a developing twin girl’s amniotic fluid and bloodstream may get flushed with more male hormone than it would have otherwise.

Prior studies have noted this, but hardly been large enough to prove the effects. Other research has dismissed this theory, suggesting instead that the later-in-life differences seen in girls were just a product of their being socialized differently because they were raised in tandem with a boy the same age.

But the new study, from Northwestern University and the Norwegian School of Economics, is the largest to-date to look at everything from testosterone levels in the womb to outcomes over 30 years of the lives of twin pairs of two girls compared to twin pairs of one boy and one girl.

Published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study also compared these data to information on female twins whose male or female siblings had died shortly after birth, so the researchers could see how the way these children were raised was different from how testosterone in utero effected them.

The researchers logged and analyzed data on 13,800 pairs of twins born in Norway between 1967 and 1978.

Compared to the other groups of twins, female twins who developed alongside a boy in the womb had several disadvantages later in life.

They were 15 percent less likely to graduate high school and almost four percent less likely to finish college.

These female twins also had nearly six percent lower fertility rates, and were almost 12 percent less likely to marry.

And they earned less than even girl twins whose sisters were girls too, but 8.6 percent.

These differences remained even if a girl’s twin brother had died just after birth, suggesting that it was the testosterone exposures, not the way she was raised, that explained the differences between her and other twin girls.

Exposure to more estrogen in the womb did not appear to be linked to any significant differences for boy twins.

‘This is a story about the biology of sex differences,’ said co-author David Figlio, Dean of Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy.

‘We are not showing that exposed females are necessarily more ‘male-like,’ but our findings are consistent with the idea that passive exposure to prenatal testosterone changes women’s education, labor market, and fertility outcomes.’

Although they note the possibility that this pattern will only become more common as IVF is on the rise, leading to a doubling of twinning, the researchers also said their findings shouldn’t be cause for alarm.

‘While we found moderate effects at the national level, these results reflect mean differences, not everyone will be affected in the same way, and some female twins may not be effected at all,’ said study co-author Krzyzstof Karbownik of Emory University said.

‘And, these effects are highly unlikely to result from any individual fertility decision made by a woman or couple, given that twins are a small subset of births and male-female twin pairs even rarer yet.

‘We certainly do not advocate against delayed reproduction or the use of IVF, which are complex decisions made by individuals balancing a range of personal factors.’

Github – Warning – “… this is larger than GitHub’s recommended maximum file size of 50.00 MB”


In our last post tried uploading Microsoft’s office Excel Viewer to github, but ran into a familiar error\warning.

Referenced Posts

Here are referenced posts :-

  1. Microsoft Office Files Viewer



Error Image


Error Text

>git push
Enumerating objects: 8, done.
Counting objects: 100% (8/8), done.
Delta compression using up to 4 threads
Compressing objects: 100% (3/3), done.
Writing objects: 100% (7/7), 73.84 MiB | 712.00 KiB/s, done.
Total 7 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
remote: warning: GH001: Large files detected. You may want to try Git Large File Storage - https://git-lfs.github.com.
remote: warning: See http://git.io/iEPt8g for more information.
remote: warning: File Excel/Excel2007/RTM/12.0.4518.1071/ExcelViewer.exe is 74.14 MB; this is larger than GitHub's recommended maximum file size of 50.00 MB
To https://github.com/DanielAdeniji/MicrosoftOfficeViewer.git
   c1abc53..5c0f86d  master -> master


Git Large File Storage


Please peruse Git Large File Storage instruction on how to incorporate Git LFS:

Git Large File Storage

  1. Git Command Line Extensions
    • Download Git Command Line Extensions
    • Install
  2. Launch Command Line Shell
    • Access your targeted repository root folder
    • Git Lfs Install
      • Enable lfs for current repository
    • Git lfs track
      • Register files\file types
    • Make sure .gitattributes is tracked
      • git add .gitattributes
    • Commit, as usual
    • Push, as usual



Download Git LFS for Windows.

It is available here.

And, the current version is 2.71.


Please install the downloaded file

Command Line Shell

I use Command Line Shell and so launched one.

git lfs install
git lfs install
git lfs track
git lfs track
git lfs track *.exe
Add .gitattributes
git add .gitattributes
git add .gitattributes
Add Files
git add
git add *.exe
Git Commit
git commit
git commit
Git Push
git push
git push
Output – Image


Output – Textual
>git push
Uploading LFS objects: 100% (1/1), 78 MB | 735 KB/s, done
Enumerating objects: 13, done.
Counting objects: 100% (13/13), done.
Delta compression using up to 4 threads
Compressing objects: 100% (5/5), done.
Writing objects: 100% (11/11), 1.18 KiB | 121.00 KiB/s, done.
Total 11 (delta 1), reused 0 (delta 0)
remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (1/1), completed with 1 local object.
To https://github.com/DanielAdeniji/MicrosoftOfficeViewer.git
   4144078..d08a9f8  master -> master



  1. Indicate LFS Upload
    • Uploading LFS objects: 100% (1/1), 78 MB | 735 KB/s, done




  1. Review files marked as LFS
    • Locally
    • Uploaded



Files marked as LFS


To review the list of files you have marked as LFS, please review your .gitattributes file


type .gitattributes

Output – Image


Output – Textual

*.exe filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

  • *.exe
    • filter=lfs

Uploaded Files

To verify if a file is uploaded as an LFS file, please launch a browser and access the file’s URL.

LFS files will be noted as “Stored with Git LFS“.



  1. GitHub
    • Git Large File Storage
    • Versioning Large Files

Transact SQL :- Error – Msg 15138 – “The database principal owns a schema in the database, and cannot be dropped”


Cleaning up a database as we move it from Development to Production.


Drop User


if user_id('LAB\daniel') is not null

	exec sp_droprolemember
			  @rolename = 'db_owner'
			, @membername = 'LAB\daniel'

	drop user [LAB\daniel];



Msg 15138

Error Text

Msg 15138, Level 16, State 1, Line 115

The database principal owns a schema in the database, and cannot be dropped.

Error Image








        , tblSS.schema_id

        , tblSS.principal_id

        , [principal]
            = user_name(tblSS.principal_id)

		, [principalIsFixedRole]
			= tblSDP.is_fixed_role

		, [principalType]
			= tblSDP.[type_desc]

		--, tblSDP.*

from   sys.schemas tblSS

inner join sys.database_principals tblSDP

		on tblSS.principal_id = tblSDP.principal_id 

order by
    user_name(tblSS.principal_id) asc




  1. Schema
    • db_datareader
      • The owner for the db_datareader schema has been assigned to a database account, other than itself


Change Schema Owner



   TO [db_datareader]

Transact SQL – User defined error messages


Quickly, how to identify user defined error messages.

Guide Post

Here is the Link :-

Docs / SQL / Relational databases / System stored procedures
sp_addmessage (Transact-SQL)

@msgnum = ] msg_id
Is the ID of the message. msg_id is int with a default of NULL. msg_id for user-defined error messages can be an integer between 50,001 and 2,147,483,647.


To defined a new error, we have to specify a message id greater than 50001.  Or pass along null, and an id greater than 50001 will be assigned to us.



  1. sys.messages
    • messsage_id >=50001



        , tblSM.[language_id]

        , tblSM.[severity]

        , tblSM.[is_event_logged]

        , tblSM.[text]

        , [customized]
            = case
                when (tblSM.[message_id] >= 50001) then 'Y'
                else 'N'

from   sys.messages tblSM

where  tblSM.[message_id] >= 50001

Tom Krazit :- Why some open-source companies are considering a more closed approach


There is a topic that I have been following in the last few months.

And, it is how well Cloud Service Providers are protecting the Open Source Ecosystem.

Writing for GeekWire, here is Tom Krazit update from  2018-Nov-19th.



At the peak of its power, open-source software is having an existential crisis.

There’s no question that the concept of open-source software has revolutionized the enterprise software world, which spent billions of dollars fighting the mere idea for several years before accepting that a new future had arrived. But more than a few people are starting to wonder if the very nature of open-source software ― the idea that it can be used by pretty much anyone for pretty much anything ― is causing its developers big problems in the era of distributed cloud computing services.

Since we last explored this topic, two prominent open-source software companies have made the decision to alter the licenses under which some of their software is distributed, with the expressed intent of making it harder ― or impossible ― for cloud computing providers to offer a service based around that software.

Two companies does not a movement make. But as the cloud world packs its bags for Las Vegas and Amazon Web Services’ re:Invent 2018 conference next week, underscoring that company’s ability to set the agenda for the upcoming year, the intersection between open-source projects and cloud computing services is on many people’s minds.

“The way that I would think of it, the role that open source plays in creating commercial opportunities has changed,” said Abby Kearns, executive director of the open-source Cloud Foundry Foundation. “We’re going to see a lot more of this conversation happening than less.”

Changing of the guard

“I would put it in a very blunt way: for many years we were suckers, and let them take what we developed and make tons of money on this.”

Redis Labs CEO Ofer Bengal doesn’t mince words. His company, known for its open-source in-memory database, has been around for eight years, an eternity in the fast-changing world of modern enterprise software.

Cloud computing was very much underway in 2011, but it was still a tool for early adopters or startups that couldn’t afford to bet millions on servers to incubate a promising but unproven idea. Most established companies were still building their own tech infrastructure the old-fashioned way, but they were increasingly realizing that open-source software would allow them to build that infrastructure with open-source components in ways that were much more flexible and cheaper than proprietary packages from traditional enterprise software companies

AWS likes to insist that it is primarily focused on its customers, but that focus also allows it to see which technologies and services are gaining traction in order to offer similar services to its customers. It launched an AWS-managed version of the open-source version of Redis as a cloud service in 2013. Redis became quite popular during that period, and major companies like American Express, Home Depot, and Dreamworks built tech infrastructure using the database. Redis Labs offers its own product, Redis Enterprise, that provides the database as a service on public clouds or supports customers running it on their own infrastructure, and continues to contribute to the Redis open-source project.

Since then, AWS has made “hundreds of millions” of dollars offering Redis to its customers without contributing nearly as much to the open-source community that builds and maintain that project, Bengal said. It’s impossible to know exactly how much money we’re really talking about, but it’s certainly true that AWS and other cloud providers benefit from the work of open-source developers they do not employ.

“Ninety-nine percent of the contributions to Redis were made by Redis Labs,” Bengal said. There’s a longstanding myth in the open-source world that projects are driven by a community of contributors, but in reality, paid developers contribute the bulk of the code in most modern open-source projects, as Puppet founder Luke Kanies explained in our story earlier this year.

That money has to come from somewhere. For a long time, Redis was a good example of a successful open-source business model, shepherding the base project while developing its own software and services around it. But as more and more companies embrace cloud computing and “lift and shift” their existing applications and infrastructure to providers like AWS, it makes a lot of sense to use the AWS Redis service alongside all the other table-stakes AWS services like EC2 and S3 as opposed to a service offered by Redis through the AWS Marketplace.

“This is a problem not just for us but for almost any successful open-source project to date,” Bengal said. And while AWS is always the focus of these conversations due to its market power, it’s far from the only cloud provider around the world offering these types of open-source projects as services.

So in August, Redis Labs decided to convert the license it uses for new database extensions built on top of Redis — but not Redis itself — to the Commons Clause license, which specifies that other companies are not allowed to offer those extensions as a cloud service.

“We keep the freedom to decide for each piece of software whether to put that under the permissive open-source license or Commons Clause,” Bengal said. “This is basically a business decision.”

Then in October, another well-known open-source database company made a similar decision. MongoDB announced that going forward, it would license the MongoDB Community Server software under a different license called SSPL, which allows cloud providers to offer MongoDB as a service but requires them to either open-source all of the code they write to create that service or reach a commercial arrangement with MongoDB.

It’s not a coincidence that two database companies are leading this charge. Databases are extremely complicated projects to develop and absolutely vital to any enterprise company operating at scale.“Whenever a new open-source project becomes popular, cloud providers strip mine the technology, put the freeware on their platform, capture most if not all of the value but give little back to the community,” said Dev Ittycheria, president and CEO of MongoDB, currently valued at $4.3 billion on the Nasdaq. “We think it’s important for someone like us to lead and help the next set of open-source companies and projects thrive and grow.”

Ittycheria estimated that MongoDB had spent $150 million on research and development over the years to create and maintain the open-source version of the database. In its last fiscal year, MongoDB recorded $154.5 million from its commercial software and support services.

“Our view is that open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to take and sell,” wrote Salil Deshpande, managing director of Bain Capital Ventures, in a post on Techcrunch after Redis announced its decision. Deshpande is an investor in Redis Labs and whose efforts to organize open-source companies and develop the Commons Clause license we previewed in March.

As open-source software became such an important part of the enterprise software world, it was probably inevitable that commercial interests would start to influence its direction more and more. The questions now are, what does it mean to be open source? And what do companies that generate revenue from offering services around open-source projects they did not develop owe to the creators and maintainers of those projects?

Open and shut

When considering the first question, it’s important to note that Redis’ Commons Clause license is decidedly not an open-source license, which everyone involved readily admits. Redis remains an open-source project under the widely used BSD license, but the company now applies the Commons Clause license to extensions it develops around that project.

With MongoDB, it’s a little different. Because the SSPL license stipulates that more open-source software should be the result when cloud providers offer an open-source project as a service, the company argues that this is consistent with the ethos of open source.

“Everyone wants more open source, but someone’s got to fund it. And to fund it you need to make sure you have a commercial existence,” Ittycheria said.

Adam Jacob, co-founder and CTO of Seattle’s Chef, which maintains a trio of open-source projects designed to make infrastructure and application management easier, was skeptical that this is the right direction for the future of open-source projects, developers, and companies.

“I don’t think it’s a community-based movement, for sure it’s not a movement in the way open source was a movement or that free software was a movement,” Jacob said. “It’s not like there’s a third-leg movement that’s like, ‘you know what we need is stronger commercial protections for businesses.’”
“The more interesting thing hiding inside here is that, from an open-source business model point of view, the open-source part of what they were doing was always a component of distribution for their business model. It was more about developer reach,” Jacob said, the primary goal being to create a “funnel strategy” that would draw in users with a free version and upsell them on the commercial version.After all, when they were getting off the ground and raising money companies like Redis and MongoDB were quite happy to take advantage of the friendly and open-minded nature of the open-source community to spread the word about their creations, he said.

Yet for a lot of small companies, participating in open-source communities and maintaining projects is the only way to compete against the more established players. One of the hardest things to do as a young unproven enterprise software company is to convince other companies they need to pay for your product.

“Open source offers a lot of opportunity, particularly for startup companies,” Kearns said. But at some point, that early strategic decision can become an albatross, she said; another really hard thing to do is to convince someone that what they once enjoyed for free now comes with a price.

Clouds on the horizon

This perhaps gets to the crux of the debate: is there still value in developing software out in the open as a community process that everyone can use, even if the days of the hobbyist open-source developer are long gone and cloud providers can take advantage of that work without having to contribute anything back?

Jacob thinks so.

“My belief is that what we have done wrong, we actually stopped trusting the commons and the value of free software as a necessity for building better communities because we decided very early on that the business and the community were two separate things,” he said.

Redis and MongoDB believe they aren’t throwing their open-source communities under the bus. They argue they have no choice but to find new ways to financially support the work of their developers, who are absolutely essential to the health of those communities, even if some of that work remains proprietary or comes with strings attached.

The big three cloud providers are keeping quiet on these issues for now, declining to make executives available to discuss this shift in open-source licensing. Google has evangelized the value of open-source since its earliest days, while Microsoft and AWS have taken different paths to this new world.

After years as Public Enemy #1, Microsoft has embraced open-source software, hiring developers with strong open-source experience and making some key contributions back to several communities. AWS has been slower to work closely with the open-source community, but has changed its tune over the last few years, bringing on open-source veterans like James Gosling and Adrian Cockcroft to shift its thinking about community contributions.

If more companies switch to this more aggressive style of licensing, it could force a shift in product-development strategies at cloud providers as they assess which services are worth striking commercial deals over, and which are not. For now, there are still lots of startups launching companies and projects around traditional open-source licenses, which means the industry is waiting to see how the market reacts to Redis and MongoDB’s moves.

But cloud computing has changed nearly all of the assumptions around how modern businesses should build and manage the technology they need to compete in the 21st century. It wouldn’t be too surprising if cloud computing changed some of the assumptions behind open-source software development.

Angel Tree – 2018 – Chapter 03


It is Sunday and back in the House of worship.

In between services wanted to get in another chapter.

The Church

I recollect the words of William Temple sharing that the “The Church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members.”

And, there is a lot of truth in that.

Angel Tree

There are many things Angel Tree share with other ministries.


Yet, as a Prison Ministry it interconnects those shut in with their loved ones on the outside.

It allows them to recommit to their family in the following ways :-

  1. Grand Parents
    • As I have said before it is the Grandparents that are raising most of the children left behind
    • And, in some cases they improvise when the Angels ask about their parents.  They say they are away making money
    • Little Gifts in the names of the parents help further the stories and fable
    • And, in little ways the children will share something in common with their cousins and friends
  2. Present Parent
    • It is very hard being a Single Parent
    • And, they need a second affirming voice, as well



The ministry Administrators includes the following :-

  1. Prison Clergy
  2. Volunteers who prepare the database of the shut-in and their Angels and assign that list to Churches



I am more familiar with the Churches and the part they play.

As often been said, it is the women of the Church who do most of the work.

Here is some of that work :-

  1. Desire to Listen
    • A desire to call the receiving family and ask about the children well being
    • Ask about their hurt and needs
    • Try to encapsulate those needs into concrete gifts
  2. Scoped Adoption
    • Their is sometimes a scoped adoption, as well
    • In some cases, these mothers look for children who share the same age with their children
    • In doing so they do for others as they do for theirs; and as they hope someone else will do for their children
    • With the children partnering, accosted to us is just not the person who picked an Angel, but a family line
  3. Abiding Prayer
    • When gifts are delivered it is hoped that the delivers will go in and fellowship with the receivers.
    • These days people are hesitant to go into other people homes.
    • And, so here we are with people wanting to participate, but they are not sure how deeply to step in and connect
    • Thus they sent others in
    • But, as community of faith, they they do not send them in with gifts
    • But, heavy in prayer with souls intertwined and spirits enjoined



As the second service started, the man who brought me into this ministry drove in with his wife.  He was sure to bring his wife unto the Church’s doorstep and waited on her to climb the stairs.

He handed her off to me as I held her hand and walked up those few stairs.

I grew up on the sister’s states to his.  They met at a military base on the next state over.

The quietness of the man.  The gentility of his spirit.

The hidden-ness that allows others to safely bring themselves up behind him.  And, understand that to serve there is need for brokenness and consecration.