> Sqlite's test suite simulates just about every kind of failure you can imagine

The page you link even mentions scenarios they know about that do happen and that they still assume won't happen. So even sqlite doesn't make anywhere near as strong a claim as you make.

> SQLite assumes that the operating system will buffer writes and that a write request will return before data has actually been stored in the mass storage device. SQLite further assumes that write operations will be reordered by the operating system. For this reason, SQLite does a "flush" or "fsync" operation at key points. SQLite assumes that the flush or fsync will not return until all pending write operations for the file that is being flushed have completed. We are told that the flush and fsync primitives are broken on some versions of Windows and Linux. This is unfortunate. It opens SQLite up to the possibility of database corruption following a power loss in the middle of a commit. However, there is nothing that SQLite can do to test for or remedy the situation. SQLite assumes that the operating system that it is running on works as advertised. If that is not quite the case, well then hopefully you will not lose power too often.

There was a time that Oracle databases used raw disk partitions to minimize the influence of the OS in what happens between memory and storage. It was more for multiple instances looking at the same SCSI device (Oracle Parallel Server).

I don't think that is often done now.

> So even sqlite doesn't make anywhere near as strong a claim as you make.

And? If you write to a disk and later this disk is missing, you don't have durability. SQLite cannot automatically help you to commit your writes to a satellite for durability against species ending event on Earth, and hence its "durability" has limits exactly as spelled out by them.