[srikar-naidu]

Summary

Passes a required database handle through dequeue and legacy self-referential ordering, so SQL, transactions, and instance counter updates use the selected database.

Adds SessionContext.db, defaults it to routed access, and restores the default handle after unpickling. The receiver operation passes this handle to dequeue.

TODO

• Added tests for the new code
• Updated code docstrings
• No new dependencies required

Reviewer guidance

This PR targets dequeue-records-366.

Following Task 5, DatabaseMaxCounter.update_fsics() remains unchanged for #367. The pinned tests mock that helper while checking dequeue SQL, counters, ordering, and rollback under assert_no_default_db_queries() with routers disabled. Full pinned FSIC routing therefore still depends on #367. If that work should be included here, I can adjust the scope.

Verification completed locally:

• All 99 context and operation tests passed.
• All four unchanged async and legacy network characterization tests passed.
• Repository hooks passed.
• The broader run reported two timestamp failures in unchanged TransferSession tests on Windows. Both passed on rerun.
• PostgreSQL was not run locally.

Issues addressed

Addresses #366, with FSIC helper routing deferred to #367 as specified in Task 5.

Documentation

Updated the SessionContext and dequeue docstrings. No separate documentation files were added.

AI usage

I used Codex as a coding assistant for implementation, test generation, and running checks. I provided the issue requirements and maintainer’s instructions, discussed the proposed approach, and evaluated the scope decision around FSIC routing. I chose to keep that work in #367 according to Task 5 and document the limitation for the reviewer. I also used the lessons and review feedback from my previous contribution to guide this PR.

[learning-equality-bot]

👋 Hi @srikar-naidu, thanks for contributing!

For the review process to begin, please verify that the following is satisfied:

• Contribution is aligned with our contributing guidelines

• Pull request description has correctly filled AI usage section & follows our AI guidance:

  AI guidance

  
  

  State explicitly whether you didn't use or used AI & how.

  If you used it, ensure that the PR is aligned with Using AI as well as our DEEP framework. DEEP asks you:

  • Disclose — Be open about when you've used AI for support.
  • Engage critically — Question what is generated. Review code for correctness and unnecessary complexity.
  • Edit — Review and refine AI output. Remove unnecessary code and verify it still works after your edits.
  • Process sharing — Explain how you used the AI so others can learn.

  
  

  Examples of good disclosures:

  "I used Claude Code to implement the component, prompting it to follow the pattern in ComponentX. I reviewed the generated code, removed unnecessary error handling, and verified the tests pass."

  "I brainstormed the approach with Gemini, then had it write failing tests for the feature. After reviewing the tests, I used Claude Code to generate the implementation. I refactored the output to reduce verbosity and ran the full test suite."

📢✨ Before we assign a reviewer:

• @rtibblesbot will pre-review this pull request. Its comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly.
• We'll also invite community pre-review. See the community review guidance for both authors and reviewers.

Also check that issue requirements are satisfied & you ran pre-commit locally.

Pull requests that don't follow the guidelines will be closed.

Reviewer assignment can take up to 2 weeks.

📎 We couldn't find an issue linked to this pull request. Please edit the description and link one under References, for example Fixes #123 or Closes #123. A plain #123 mention doesn't link the PR to the issue.