I get a lot of spurious messages like this in the log:
```
2019-08-31T18:07:53Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592633 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:09:40Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592634 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:10:28Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592635 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:11:01Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
```
also
```
2019-08-31T18:19:47Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70015, blocks=592636, peer=0
2019-08-31T18:19:47Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:19:47Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70015, blocks=592636, peer=1
2019-08-31T18:19:48Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
2019-08-31T18:19:48Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70015, blocks=592636, peer=2
2019-08-31T18:19:49Z Synchronizing blockheaders, height: 592636 (~100.00%)
```
This log message was introduced in #15615 by @jonasschnelli..
From what I understand, it's supposed to only be shown once per 2000 blocks, not multiple times for the same block.


{
    LOCK(cs_LastBlockFile);
    FlatFilePos block_pos_old(nLastBlockFile, vinfoBlockFile[nLastBlockFile].nSize);
    FlatFilePos undo_pos_old(nLastBlockFile, vinfoBlockFile[nLastBlockFile].nUndoSize);
    bool status = true;
    status &= BlockFileSeq().Flush(block_pos_old, fFinalize);
    status &= UndoFileSeq().Flush(undo_pos_old, fFinalize);
    if (!status) {
        AbortNode("Flushing block file to disk failed. This is likely the result of an I/O error.");
    }
}
static bool FindUndoPos(CValidationState &state, int nFile, FlatFilePos &pos, unsigned int nAddSize);
static bool WriteUndoDataForBlock(const CBlockUndo& blockundo, CValidationState& state, CBlockIndex* pindex, const CChainParams& chainparams)
{
    
    if (pindex->GetUndoPos().IsNull()) {
        FlatFilePos _pos;
        if (!FindUndoPos(state, pindex->nFile, _pos, ::GetSerializeSize(blockundo, CLIENT_VERSION) + 40))
            return error("ConnectBlock(): FindUndoPos failed");
        if (!UndoWriteToDisk(blockundo, _pos, pindex->pprev->GetBlockHash(), chainparams.MessageStart()))
            return AbortNode(state, "Failed to write undo data");
        
        pindex->nUndoPos = _pos.nPos;
        pindex->nStatus |= BLOCK_HAVE_UNDO;
        setDirtyBlockIndex.insert(pindex);
    }
    return true;
}
static CCheckQueue<CScriptCheck> scriptcheckqueue(128);
void ThreadScriptCheck(int worker_num) {