> 3. Consistent lock ordering: avoiding deadlocks This section is badly written. For example, it refers to different table names than those previously introduc

> 3. Consistent lock ordering: avoiding deadlocks This section is badly written. For example, it refers to different table names than those previously introduced. The slop shows. While I appreciate the post, I wonder why they didn't bother using an LLM in a way that would at least ensure internal consistency.