Verified for Vertica 7.2.3.Please refer attached screenshot(14626_dev-203.png)

@Jenny : All the values except the highlighted one i.e "local_utc_timestamp" are expected. As we are displaying the local time it should match the local time, please see the screenshot to understand the query. Is this an expected behavior? If yes then I will mark it as Verified.

Here are my observations when examining the results in the screenshot.

- The values of "local_timestamp" and "local_utc_timestamp" are the same. This confirms that "local_utc_timestamp" is correct.
- For "local_utc_timestamp", the first query returns "09:53:23" and the second query returns "02:53:23 -07". Both values are the same if you take into account the timezone offset. This confirms again that "local_utc_timestamp" is correct.
- Why is the date "2016-06-11"? How is the ParAccel server set up?

The date/time values are returned from the database server. I am not sure why it should be "08:10:25". But from your screenshot, the local time (as indicated in the status bar of the query window) is "1:07:18 PM". Why do you think that "local_utc_timestamp" should be "08:10:25"?

- Why is the date "2016-06-11"? How is the ParAccel server set up?

>> It is the date on ParAccel server VM.

The date/time values are returned from the database server. I am not sure why it should be "08:10:25". But from your screenshot, the local time (as indicated in the status bar of the query window) is "1:07:18 PM". Why do you think that "local_utc_timestamp" should be "08:10:25"?

>> This reading "08:10:25" was the previous one I forgot to edit it in a screenshot. As per the screenshot I mean  the both values in "local_utc_timestamp" should be same without the offset i.e "09:53:23" as it shows the local time. But if this the correct behavior considering the offset. 

I will mark this issue as Verified.

Verified in ADS 17.0.7-9, 18.0.0-devi-203 for ParAccel server.