stabilization of node:sqlite module

[everett1992]

What is the problem this feature will solve?

I couldn't find any issues tracking the stabalization of the node:sqlite module. Built in sqlite support will remove the need for native modules which complicate build and distribution.

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

Eventually stabilizing test sqlite

What alternatives have you considered?

No response

[cjihrig]

node:sqlite is already unflagged. I would be supportive of dropping the experimental warning as well.

As far as officially stabilizing the module goes, I think there is still some work to do. I think targeting Node v25 in October could be a realistic goal, but there aren't a lot of people working on the effort. Another hurdle is a lack of reviews from collaborators - things move slowly when it takes roughly a week to get changes merged.

[everett1992]

Is there a rough list of what needs done before it can be marked stable?
I'd be happy to review or contribute.

If it's not stable by v24 could it be backported to 24 (and ideally older versions). One of the reasons I want this stabilized soon is so it can be used by libraries / apps with lower minimum supported node versions.

[jasnell]

Another hurdle is a lack of reviews from collaborators - things move slowly when it takes roughly a week to get changes merged...

These are not always readily visible. If there are specific PRs please tag me and I'll be happy to review.

[cjihrig]

Is there a rough list of what needs done before it can be marked stable?

Not exactly. There are currently some open issues and PRs. Some (not all) of those need to be resolved. I know that @billywhizz had mentioned some potential performance optimizations as well that I think would be good to explore.

If it's not stable by v24 could it be backported to 24

I don't see it making the v24.0.0 cutoff, but it could likely be backported.

[billywhizz]

i can take a look at any work that is outstanding over next few days and can hopefully help with any effort to stabilize this going forward.

[anonrig]

Another hurdle is a lack of reviews from collaborators - things move slowly when it takes roughly a week to get changes merged.

@cjihrig Would you mind tagging me in such PRs? Happy to review.

[KingSupernova31]

Agreed this is a very useful feature, would be nice to have it stable. But please not before async support is added! #54307

[everett1992]

@KingSupernova31 I don't think async support should be required to be implemented before the sync API is stable. We just need enough of the async API sketched out to be confident that it meshes with the sync model.

For example, whether DatabaseSync should be renamed Database if we want sync and async access via the same class, or if there will be a new DatabaseAsync class with only async methods.