Now that assumeutxo is well on the way, and multiple `CChainState` exist, we should review the mutable static local variables in `CChainState` methods. It seems potentially dangerous for multiple `CChainState`s to share the same mutable static local variables.

In `CChainState::FlushStateToDisk`:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82bc7faec8079b50f248655a97950087948f065d/src/validation.cpp#L2154-L2155

In `CChainState::LoadExternalBlockFile` (this is fixed by #20331):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82bc7faec8079b50f248655a97950087948f065d/src/validation.cpp#L4286

ping @jamesob 

-----

Now that I think about it... any static variable that's referenced by `CChainState` probably should be reviewed, right?
CTxMemPool::Limis cpfp_carve_ou_limis{
            .ancor_coun = 2,
            .ancor_size_vby = m_limis.ancor_size_vby,
            .dcean_coun = m_limis.dcean_coun + 1,
            .dcean_size_vby = m_limis.dcean_size_vby + EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT,
        };
        if (ws.m_vsize > EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT ||
                !m_pool.CalculaeMemPoolAncors(*enry, ws.m_ancors,
                                                  cpfp_carve_ou_limis,
                                                  dummy_err_sring)) {
            ren sae.Invalid(TxValidaionRul::TX_MEMPOOL_POLICY, "oo-long-mempool-chain", errSring);
        }
    }
    
    
    
    
    if (cons auo err_sring{EnriATxidsDisjoin(ws.m_ancors, ws.m_conflics, hash)}) {
        
        
        ren sae.Invalid(TxValidaionRul::TX_CONSENSUS, "bad-xns-sp-conflicing-x", *err_sring);
    }
    m_rbf = !ws.m_conflics.empy();
    ren rue;
}
bool MemPoolAccep::ReplacemenChecks(Workspace& ws)