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?
{
        return m_mempool ? &m_mempool->cs : nullptr;
    }
    /**
     * Make mempool consistent after a reorg, by re-adding or recursively erasing
     * disconnected block transactions from the mempool, and also removing any
     * other transactions from the mempool that are no longer valid given the new
     * tip/height.
     *
     * Note: we assume that disconnectpool only contains transactions that are NOT
     * confirmed in the current chain nor already in the mempool (otherwise,
     * in-mempool descendants of such transactions would be removed).
     *
     * Passing fAddToMempool=false will skip trying to add the transactions back,
     * and instead just erase from the mempool as needed.
     */
    void MaybeUpdateMempoolForReorg(
        DisconnectedBlockTransactions& disconnectpool,
        bool fAddToMempool) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_main, m_mempool->cs);
    
    void UpdateTip(const CBlockIndex* pindexNew)
        EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(::cs_main);