services/horizon/ingest: historyRange and reingestHistoryRange states send batches of ledgers to tx processors

[sreuland]

PR Checklist

PR Structure

• This PR has reasonably narrow scope (if not, break it down into smaller PRs).
• This PR avoids mixing refactoring changes with feature changes (split into two PRs
  otherwise).
• This PR's title starts with name of package that is most changed in the PR, ex.
  services/friendbot, or all or doc if the changes are broad or impact many
  packages.

Thoroughness

• This PR adds tests for the most critical parts of the new functionality or fixes.
• I've updated any docs (developer docs, .md
  files, etc... affected by this change). Take a look in the docs folder for a given service,
  like this one.

Release planning

• I've updated the relevant CHANGELOG (here for Horizon) if
  needed with deprecations, added features, breaking changes, and DB schema changes.
• I've decided if this PR requires a new major/minor version according to
  semver, or if it's mainly a patch change. The PR is targeted at the next
  release branch if it's not a patch change.

What

Changed the historyRange and reingestHistoryRange state machines to send batches of ledgers to tx processors to be processed into memory and then flushed to current db tx once.

For context, the pre-req of tx processors enablement with fast batch builders for holding multiple ledger updates in memory and then flushing once was merged in #4909, this changeset builds upon that by now letting these ranged state machine ingestions to pass a range of ledgers to the tx processors.

The batch size of ledgers is configurable per Config.MaxLedgerPerFlush

Why

Ingestion performance, reducing the number of db round trips for tx commits to lower overall time to finish ingestion range.
Closes #5099

Known limitations

this batching of ledgers for db round trips was only applicable to the two reingest states historyRange and reingestHistoryRange

[tamirms]

@sreuland this PR looks good! The 2 bugs mentioned at the end of #5099 are not addressed in this PR. Is the plan to spin out separate issues for those 2 bugs?

[sreuland]

@sreuland this PR looks good! The 2 bugs mentioned at the end of #5099 are not addressed in this PR. Is the plan to spin out separate issues for those 2 bugs?

@tamirms, yes, have created #5128 and #5127