when processing incoming transactions, it can be hard to see what's going on,
because we process a bunch of stuff in parallel, and because we may end up
recursively working our way through a chain of three or four events.
This commit creates a way to use logcontexts to add the relevant event ids to
the log lines.
So, it turns out that if you have a first `Deferred` `D1`, you can add a
callback which returns another `Deferred` `D2`, and `D2` must then complete
before any further callbacks on `D1` will execute (and later callbacks on `D1`
get the *result* of `D2` rather than `D2` itself).
So, `D1` might have `called=True` (as in, it has started running its
callbacks), but any new callbacks added to `D1` won't get run until `D2`
completes - so if you `yield D1` in an `inlineCallbacks` function, your `yield`
will 'block'.
In conclusion: some of our assumptions in `logcontext` were invalid. We need to
make sure that we don't optimise out the logcontext juggling when this
situation happens. Fortunately, it is easy to detect by checking `D1.paused`.
It turns out that the only thing we use the __dict__ of LoggingContext for is
`request`, and given we create lots of LoggingContexts and then copy them every
time we do a db transaction or log line, using the __dict__ seems a bit
redundant. Let's try to optimise things by making the request attribute
explicit.
Richard van der Hoff