Is it fine to have foreign key as primary key?

Foreign keys are almost always "Allow Duplicates," which would make them unsuitable as Primary Keys.

Instead, find a field that uniquely identifies each record in the table, or add a new field (either an auto-incrementing integer or a GUID) to act as the primary key.

The only exception to this are tables with a one-to-one relationship, where the foreign key and primary key of the linked table are one and the same.

Primary keys always need to be unique, foreign keys need to allow non-unique values if the table is a one-to-many relationship. It is perfectly fine to use a foreign key as the primary key if the table is connected by a one-to-one relationship, not a one-to-many relationship. If you want the same user record to have the possibility of having more than 1 related profile record, go with a separate primary key, otherwise stick with what you have.

Yes, it is legal to have a primary key being a foreign key. This is a rare construct, but it applies for:

• a 1:1 relation. The two tables cannot be merged in one because of different permissions and privileges only apply at table level (as of 2017, such a database would be odd).

• a 1:0..1 relation. Profile may or may not exist, depending on the user type.

• performance is an issue, and the design acts as a partition: the profile table is rarely accessed, hosted on a separate disk or has a different sharding policy as compared to the users table. Would not make sense if the underlining storage is columnar.