[FEATURE] MSSQL Storage Provider

[bala-intron]

First of all, thanks for the awesome project/framework!
Been keeping up with all the latest webinars and updates — everything is awesome and super helpful.

Problem Statement

Mastra currently supports memory providers like PostgreSQL, but lacks support for Microsoft SQL Server (MSSQL). MSSQL is widely used in enterprise environments, and the lack of native support limits adoption of Mastra in MSSQL-based infrastructures.

Proposed Solution

Introduce a new MSSQL-based memory provider that:

• Uses the existing Mastra storage interfaces.
• Implements all required CRUD operations using the mssql Node.js library.
• Includes schema management, pagination, and JSON compatibility via NVARCHAR(MAX) and JSON_VALUE(...) for filtering.
• Passes parity tests equivalent to existing providers like PostgreSQL.

I've already implemented the feature and opened a pull request here: [#5849]

Component

Memory

Alternatives Considered

No response

Example Use Case

`import { MSSQLStore, MSSQLConfig } from "@mastra/mssql";
import { Memory } from "@mastra/memory";

const DB_CONFIG: MSSQLConfig = {
server: process.env.MSSQL_HOST || 'localhost',
port: Number(process.env.MSSQL_PORT) || 1433,
database: process.env.MSSQL_DB || 'master',
user: process.env.MSSQL_USER || 'sa',
password: process.env.MSSQL_PASSWORD || 'Your_password123',
};

export const storage = new MSSQLStore(DB_CONFIG);

export const memory = new Memory({
options: {
lastMessages: 10,
semanticRecall: false,
threads: {
generateTitle: true
},
},
storage,
});
`

Additional Context

No response

Verification

• I have searched the existing issues to make sure this is not a duplicate
• I have provided sufficient context for the team to understand the request

[github-actions]

Thank you for reporting this issue! We have assigned it to @NikAiyer and will look into it as soon as possible.

[bala-intron]

@abhiaiyer91 Can you please approve the workflow run again? I have made changes to pnpm-lock file

[bala-intron]

@abhiaiyer91 Can you please approve the workflow run again? Ihave made the changes as per @NikAiyer review.