> I don't understand this if it's calling option 2 the monolithic
> implementation. I was intending that the values be permanent tokens if
> you like, so that ZERO rewriting would be required for any types of
> modification. So I don't see where locking comes in. I don't want
> rewriting either.
I think you are not considering existing btree indexes here
(for the reordering case) ?
So +1 on a solution that has naturally sorting keys (e.g. your 1).
Andreas